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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.