OT - A intriguing "open lette"r on health care ...

Page 3 of 10  
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:58:12 -0500, Douglas Johnson

You'll find that apples to apples, the numbers are similar if not biased the other way. Now look a cancer survivability.

IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your prejudices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read it again. I said I needed some facts in order to make up my mind. -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't be silly, this is USENET
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like you've made up your mind about him with little evidence one way or another.
What was that you were saying about prejudice?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Certainly I have on the *preponderance* of evidence. I'm not stupid.

I know a little about economics. I've seen a *lot* of the US government. That alone is enough to convince me that socialized health care is a ruinous move.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"krw" wrote:

Really?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:47:50 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"

Not stupid enough to snip context, no.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nobody has said you are. However, you seem to believe that I am advocating some big government solution to health care. If so, you are wrong.

OK. We agree that US health care needs fixing. Any thoughts on how to do this?
Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:49:33 -0500, Douglas Johnson

Ypu've already bought into the propaganda.

*MORE* direct pay. Insurance, by its nature, is intended to pay for what one cannot afford to replace (do you buy insurance to cover oil changes?). Get the government *OUT* of health care (some states do not allow high deductible insurance). Get rid of most malpractice (you don't think the government will allow you to sue them?).
The problem isn't "health care". That's not broken. The problem is the cost. Government is *not* going to solve that one with more government. Never have. Never will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Is this the same western Europe that the gun control advocates hold up as a glowing model of the success of gun control in preventing murders?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you are not happy with the depth of my research, feel free to contribute your own. I look forward to it.

I said nothing about who broke it nor who I expect to fix it.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Be very, very careful with assertions about life expectancy. The definition used can have a very significant effect on the result of the calculation, and most of the difference, I think you will find if you look in detail at the statistics, is not in how long the average adult will live but how likely one is to survive birth, with the survival rate at birth controlled more by the definition of "live birth" than by any significant difference in medical treatment.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The term used in the quote was "longevity" which means life expectancy at birth. I know there are differences in how live births are accounted for. Do you have any data that shows this is the dominate factor in the differences in longevity shown in the quote? Numbers from an authoritative source? Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

The trouble with looking for "numbers from an authoritative source" is that if there was such source then there would not be a problem.
Run some simulations and you'll see how radically a small change in the definition of "live birth" can affect the outcome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you've done this, I'd love to see the results. I won't be surprised to see that small changes have significant effect on the outcome. However, it still does not answer the core question of whether such changes actually have an impact. -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Have to find the spreadsheet again. Played with it a long time ago in an idle moment and may not have even saved it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

We have tried it. Both Medicare and Medicaid are both, essentially, single-payer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

I don't know about Medicaid, but I'm on Medicare with a supplement and it works fine for me. I pay about $300 a month for the pair. Before I was eligible for Medicare I paid about the same for major medical coverage only. I still pay that for my wife as she isn't 65 yet.
There is a problem with fraud, but that exists for private insurance as well.
On my last endoscopy I still had to pay $36, but that's miniscule compared to what the doctor charged - of course Medicare didn't pay anywhere near what he charged.
No, it's not perfect, but I'm fairly confident I won't lose my retirement fund and/or my home from exorbitant medical bills.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...
I gave you one individual example (twice already) -- and that is a relatively minor-magnitude one; at least the doofus does work. There are millions more like him and worse. Ever watch the old Jaywalking segment on Leno to get just a sample of how bad the other end of the curve really is?

Unfortunately, I don't really believe that is as much the actual underlying motive as it is the technique chosen to "sell" the idea. Many are more concerned w/ growing bureaucracy and expanding their political base than any real reduction in health care costs.

Well, forgive me if I don't trust that kind of wishful thinking. There are far too many examples of large data information systems that had terrific cost overruns and in some cases were even abandoned w/o completion to accept that something of this magnitude will "just work" and be cost-effective. Many of those, in fact, have been associated w/ other government agencies. IRS, FAA, etc., come to mind as specific examples.

Well, it isn't going to happen by simply continuing to _SAY_ that it is--so far, nothing has been demonstrated that will actually accomplish the objective.
Lots of Glitter, little fact. The primary feature has been the inclusion of large numbers of additional potential recipients w/o any discernible means of generating any additional revenue. Somehow there's a disconnect in how that actually will have any effect in reducing costs.

The population that isn't covered isn't paying and for the most part, isn't going to be paying under any plan I've seen advocated. One prime reason for that is that there are so many that either aren't employed or are employed at menial jobs that won't be able to make any significant contribution. I've advocated before (and you seem to ignore) that these employed should still contribute at least something simply to require them to ante up at least something but realistically their contributions won't amount to much.

I'm afraid your expectations are going to be dashed.
I already posted the point that the insurance pools should be opened to the self-employed, etc., and that will, indeed help a fairly decent-sized number. It won't, however, help with the "vast unwashed masses" that will continue to drag the system down.
I think your conception of the actual overall population demographics is skewed such that it cuts off a very significant fraction. Look at the IRS charts of %RevenueCollected vs FractionTaxpayers, then add in the additional who don't even pay any taxes and begin to understand the magnitude of the problem.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

Including 100% of the gene pool to provide preventative health care rather than provide more expensive treatment, usually via the E/R is not what is or will drive higher health care costs.
The elephant in the room is Mom & Pop, IOW, are aging population.
Health care costs for the last few years of life are consuming health care resources at an alarming rate, but what do you do?
Fortunately we have not yet come to the point where we allocate health care resources based on rate of return.
(i.e. You are to old for that (Insert name) operation. You most likely won't live long enough to make it worth the cost so we won't pay for it).
I don't have the answer, but changes must be made, and ultimately it will require a single payer system to get it done.
The politically conservative right wing will fight it to the death, but they don't have the votes to stop health care reform this year.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.