Palin Wins Inagural Award!
Aratzio
Palinbots & Teabaggers Rejoice!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this
year, one stood out from the rest.
"Death panels."
Yep, the "Lie of the Year" for Palin!
Obamadontcare
The lies are coming from the Obamacare lemmings. You people are sooooo
fjking stupid, and yet you somehow believe you are "superior" (LMFAO).
Wait 'till you're old and feeble and some bureaucrat determines your
real worth to society, then you might see things a bit differently.
"Charities are outraged people with advanced liver cancer are to be
refused life-extending Nexavar. Andrew Dillon, of the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said: �The drug does not
provide enough benefit to justify its high cost.�
Andrew Dillon, the CEO of N.I.C.E., is a career bureaucrat, not a
doctor or a scientist. He runs the system that says there is a cap of
�30,000 per patient for a quality year of life. If the panel
determines that a �quality year of life� will cost the NHS more than
�30,000, you are dead�"
http://pearsonblog.campaignserver.co.uk/?p=392
"Andrew Dillon, Chief Executive of NICE said: �We were disappointed
not to have been able to recommend the use of sorafenib, but after
carefully considering all the evidence, including the proposed
�patient access scheme� in which the manufacturer offered to provide
every fourth pack free, sorafenib does not provide enough benefit to
patients to justify its high cost."
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/press_releases.jsp?domedia=1&mid=0C630E3B-19B9-E0B5-D4B1155F35F27B10
"Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel suggested in �The Cost-Coverage Trade-off: �It�s
Health Care Costs, Stupid�� that the Hippocratic Oath actually
contributes to the �overuse� of medical care. He stated that it is
often the basis for doing everything for the patient regardless of
cost or effect on others. He challenges us to rethink that doctors
should be trained �to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective...
proposals deal with achieving better control on elderly care and the
disproportionate health care costs experienced in the last 6 months of
life. That debate will involve bioethicists, politicians and lawyers.
Part of it will be to redefine and challenge the physician�s role and
duty to work for the greater good of society."
http://www.orthosupersite.com/pda/view.asp?rID=51017
Fucking imbeciles...
Mitchell Holman
news:4b2ef803....@news.webtv.com:
> Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>Palinbots & Teabaggers Rejoice!
>>
>>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-
>>lie-year-death-panels/
>>
>>Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this
>>year, one stood out from the rest.
>>
>>"Death panels."
>>
>>Yep, the "Lie of the Year" for Palin!
>
> The lies are coming from the Obamacare lemmings. You people are sooooo
> fjking stupid, and yet you somehow believe you are "superior" (LMFAO).
How is that search for Saddamn's WMD's going?
You know, the ones that Bush was sooooo sure
were an iminent threat to us all?
Obamadontcare
What does a former failed presidency have to do with the subject of
this thread? Jeeezz! A goldfish has more memory capacity than some of
you lemmings.
Ed Huntress
"Obamadontcare" <stupi...@chiucagopolitics.com> wrote in message
news:4b2ef803....@news.webtv.com...
> Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>Palinbots & Teabaggers Rejoice!
>>
>>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
>>
>>Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this
>>year, one stood out from the rest.
>>
>>"Death panels."
>>
>>Yep, the "Lie of the Year" for Palin!
>
> The lies are coming from the Obamacare lemmings. You people are sooooo
> fjking stupid, and yet you somehow believe you are "superior" (LMFAO).
> Wait 'till you're old and feeble and some bureaucrat determines your
> real worth to society, then you might see things a bit differently.
>
>
> "Charities are outraged people with advanced liver cancer are to be
> refused life-extending Nexavar. Andrew Dillon, of the National
> Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said: "The drug does not
> provide enough benefit to justify its high cost."
approved in the UK, and patients get it if they meet roughly the same
qualifications that are needed to get it paid for in the US or Canada.
No insurance company in the US is going to pay for it if you're Stage 4,
which is what you're talking about regarding the UK in your quote. The
statistical increase in life expectancy is 2.8 months, versus placebo. If
you're early-stage, you get it for free in the UK or Canada. In the US, good
luck -- if you have good insurance, you may get it for the co-pay.
If you don't have really good drug coverage, you can get it in the US for a
little over $5,000/month. The cost apparently is half that much for private
purchase in the UK -- you'd have to ask for the latest prices. Most people
who can't pay, in the US, the UK, or Canada, and whose insurance won't pay
for it, wind up getting some support from a variety of charity-type pharma
sources, including several run by the makers of the drug, Bayer-Schering.
Bayer-Schering was my client. I edited their prescribing information.
It's ignoramuses like you, who spout this crap without knowing what you're
talking about, that are causing half of the political nonsense about health
care reform. You deserve a good swift kick in the ass.
--
Ed Huntress
Bill Noble
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/
Steve Lusardi
You have confused me. Are you stating that you think this bill is good?
Steve
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:4b2f08cc$0$22550$607e...@cv.net...
Ed Huntress
"Steve Lusardi" <steve...@lusardi.de> wrote in message
news:hgngjj$uhf$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Ed,
> You have confused me. Are you stating that you think this bill is good?
> Steve
The bill sucks. The bill is the best thing we have.
Mix and stir. <g>
I don't know what to make of the bill as it stands, Steve. I read the first
quarter or so of the original bill; that didn't tell me enough. To
understand the cost issue I'd have to sit down with some detailed
spreadsheets and spend about a week with it. Like David Brooks in his column
a couple of days ago, I favor it one week, and I'm against it the next. But
I do think it has to be passed, as lousy as it may be.
If we don't, we're on a runaway train. With or without the bill, there is
nothing on hand to prevent the runup of medical costs that is becoming
economically desperate. But some good analysts have said that the bill, as
flawed as it is, does do a good job of consolidating some costs to keep the
*additional* coverage from running up the overall expenses.
I can't judge it at this point. As our system stands right now, before the
bill, there is no incentive in the system to lower costs. Why that's true
for the insurance companies is not easy to explain (it's an oligopoly that
only controls costs at the margins, just like the car companies in the '60s,
only worse), but it's true for everyone, except for those who are
self-insured. Insurance companies make more money when their revenue
increases, regardless of its source. They can add a bit to their bottom line
by limiting coverage for very expensive procedures and drugs. But they don't
care much about the general trend in costs, as long as their (nominal)
competitors have to pay the same prices.
The problem is that if the bill isn't passed, and if it then gets revised to
satisfy the Republicans, it will be even worse. They gave the store away to
the insurance companies when they wrote Medicare Part D a few years ago. The
indications are they'll be even worse with this one, if they get their hands
on it.
With no real clampdown on the insurance companies, you don't have much
leverage to control costs. So I'm worried. As Krugman says today in his
column, no matter what happens, we're in for another 10 or 20 years of
fights over the system, and a lot of changes. But I think we have to get
started now.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
It's about time a winger won an award !!!
Usually it just folks like Obama, Carter & Gore getting
those Nobel Peace Prizes.
Now wingers have one to rejoice in too !!
--
Cliff
Cliff
<stupi...@chiucagopolitics.com> wrote:
>Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>Palinbots & Teabaggers Rejoice!
>>
>>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
>>
>>Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this
>>year, one stood out from the rest.
>>
>>"Death panels."
>>
>>Yep, the "Lie of the Year" for Palin!
>
>The lies are coming from the Obamacare lemmings. You people are sooooo
>fjking stupid, and yet you somehow believe you are "superior"
What is 1 + 1 ?
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<stupi...@chiucagopolitics.com> wrote:
>sorafenib
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorafenib
"In November 2009, the UK's National Institute of Clinical Excellence declined
to approve the drug for use within the NHS in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland, stating that its effectiveness (increasing survival in primary liver
cancer by 6 months) did not justify its high price, at up to �3000 per patient
per month.[7] In Scotland the drug had already been refused authorization by the
Scottish Medicines Consortium for use within NHS Scotland, for the same
reason.[7]"
"this benefit was not statistically significant according to the
O'Brien�Fleming threshold"
"There was no difference in quality of life measures, possibly attributable to
toxicity of sorafenib or symptoms related to underlying progression of liver
disease. "
"In some kinds of lung cancer (with squamous-cell histology) sorafenib
administered in addition to paclitaxel and carboplatin may be detrimental to
patients."
It was not approved for liver cancer in the UK it seems but may have
been for advanced renal cancer.
In the US your insurance may not cover it.
--
Cliff
James
If you are a senior, you just take a pill instead of burdening the rest of us with medical bills according to Obama. It's for the greater good you know.
Aratzio
"James" <king...@iglou.com> got double secret probation for writing:
<pats head>
No pills needed, thw wingnuts have KOOLAID!!!!!
Cliff
What pills make you lie?
--
Cliff
Strabo
Seems like a balanced and honest appraisal except that one can take
control of medical costs. First they must take control of their lives.
To those who really want to effect change, forget about insurance and
find doctors who will work for time and materials without insurance
company involvement. They will charge less and be privy to clinics,
labs and hospitals which will also charge appropriately. Expect
to pay 1/2 to 2/3 less than the padded and corrupt billings sent to
insurance companies.
Here's an example.
http://surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php
The serious investigator will also educate himself and determine a
proper course of diet, exercise, nutriceuticals and supplements. There
is no need to take big-pharma medicine for high blood pressure,
diabetes, cholesterol and other profit-making drugs. There are
alternative solutions.
Ed Huntress
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:uI2Ym.4802$yM1....@newsfe11.iad...
Interesting thoughts, Strabo. You know that the main benefits of preventive
care, and of lifestyle improvements, are extended life and better quality of
life. There's a lot of argument about how much it really saves the economy
because it seems to have little influence on costs in the last six months of
life, which is where the statistics on health care costs really rack up. One
of the cheapest things that can happen to people with cardiovascular
problems related to lifestyle is a massive heart attack -- preferably their
first one. d8-)
However, I'm all in favor of those things that you list. There are several
clinics and hospitals around the country who have found ways to improve care
and cut costs -- Mayo Clinic is one famous one, and one in Danville, PA,
Geissinger Medical Center, is another. There's a lot to learn and apply from
those models.
Professionals involved in health care that I worked with agree that the
system we have is a wreck, overall. The reform program bouncing around
Congress right now lays some groundwork for improving it, but it doesn't get
down to the things that will really reform the way medicine in practiced.
That's going to be a big job that will make the current debate look like a
picnic.
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
Yes, most insurance expenses are for the post-60 group and particularly,
old females. There's a time to live and a time to die. This is a lesson
yet to be learned by Americans.
>
> However, I'm all in favor of those things that you list. There are several
> clinics and hospitals around the country who have found ways to improve care
> and cut costs -- Mayo Clinic is one famous one, and one in Danville, PA,
> Geissinger Medical Center, is another. There's a lot to learn and apply from
> those models.
>
> Professionals involved in health care that I worked with agree that the
> system we have is a wreck, overall. The reform program bouncing around
> Congress right now lays some groundwork for improving it, but it doesn't get
> down to the things that will really reform the way medicine in practiced.
> That's going to be a big job that will make the current debate look like a
> picnic.
>
The tools, people and methods necessary to completely reform medicine
are readily available. This change requires NO connection to
government. The less government knows and the less it does the better
for all concerned.
Given its present trend, the government/medical/pharma complex will
institute a new program of Eugenics within ten years.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Seems like a balanced and honest appraisal except that one can take
> control of medical costs. First they must take control of their lives.
>
> To those who really want to effect change, forget about insurance and
> find doctors who will work for time and materials without insurance
> company involvement. They will charge less and be privy to clinics,
> labs and hospitals which will also charge appropriately. Expect to pay
> 1/2 to 2/3 less than the padded and corrupt billings sent to insurance
> companies.
>
> Here's an example.
>
> http://surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php
>
> The serious investigator will also educate himself and determine a
> proper course of diet, exercise, nutriceuticals and supplements. There
> is no need to take big-pharma medicine for high blood pressure,
> diabetes, cholesterol and other profit-making drugs. There are
> alternative solutions.
Excellent! Thanks Ed, finally alternatives to the onerous corporate
healthcare monopoly are becoming available. Are there many that you know
of that are chucking the layers of bureaucracy for honesty?
I keep remembering how my daughter got caught up with a $4,600 bill for a
visit to the hospital with her first yeast infection. From that list a
masectomy is only $5k!
And I agree about the corruption involved, not just the corporate health
care monopoly but FDA, AMA, Pharama and ABA too. The president should
use existing anti-trust laws to break them up.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
I'm sure that you and your family will be well served medically when
your doctors and nurses hate their jobs.
Strabo
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:14:54 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
>> Seems like a balanced and honest appraisal except that one can take
>> control of medical costs. First they must take control of their lives.
>>
>> To those who really want to effect change, forget about insurance and
>> find doctors who will work for time and materials without insurance
>> company involvement. They will charge less and be privy to clinics,
>> labs and hospitals which will also charge appropriately. Expect to pay
>> 1/2 to 2/3 less than the padded and corrupt billings sent to insurance
>> companies.
>>
>> Here's an example.
>>
>> http://surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php
>>
>> The serious investigator will also educate himself and determine a
>> proper course of diet, exercise, nutriceuticals and supplements. There
>> is no need to take big-pharma medicine for high blood pressure,
>> diabetes, cholesterol and other profit-making drugs. There are
>> alternative solutions.
>
> Excellent! Thanks Ed, finally alternatives to the onerous corporate
> healthcare monopoly are becoming available. Are there many that you know
> of that are chucking the layers of bureaucracy for honesty?
>
> I keep remembering how my daughter got caught up with a $4,600 bill for a
> visit to the hospital with her first yeast infection. From that list a
> masectomy is only $5k!
>
I've seen the clinic partners interviewed. They diagnosis a problem
and offer a remedy. You negotiate a cash payment which is good for a
specified period of time. If their diagnosis or fix doesn't work, then
you get a partial refund.
I hope you didn't pay that $4600.
I've cited examples of actual medical costs for several years. The only
way current ridiculous charges could have evolved is through
monopolization and government collusion.
Obama-Soetoro and the Congress plan to continue on the same course
with added costs and oppression.
>
> And I agree about the corruption involved, not just the corporate health
> care monopoly but FDA, AMA, Pharama and ABA too. The president should
> use existing anti-trust laws to break them up.
>
That'll be a cold day in Hell.
Ed Huntress
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hgrt71$gbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You're welcome, but that was Strabo. <g> He has some good points there.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
The hospital is sneaky. We paid the first hospital $1,600 bill despite
our better judgment. Then the second bill arrived for doctor fees which
we refused. Then a third bill for lab tests (pregnancy tests on a
virgin!) and finally a bill for medical supplies. Not one bill but four.
Took the hospital to small claims court and recovered most of the first
bill and the judge (female) castigated the hospital rep canceling the
remaining $3,000 bill.
> I've cited examples of actual medical costs for several years. The only
> way current ridiculous charges could have evolved is through
> monopolization and government collusion.
>
> Obama-Soetoro and the Congress plan to continue on the same course with
> added costs and oppression.
>
>
>> And I agree about the corruption involved, not just the corporate
>> health care monopoly but FDA, AMA, Pharama and ABA too. The president
>> should use existing anti-trust laws to break them up.
>>
>>
> That'll be a cold day in Hell.
--
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
>Our attitudes toward food and nutrition is a huge part of the healthcare
>crisis.
>I don't see it getting much better, either. There's far too much money to be
>made off of dipshits who can't be bothered with nutrition and real food.
I rarely go to fast food places, and when I do I prefer Subway or the
like. Yesterday I was chauffeuring a friend to a medical appointment.
I ate my lunch from the cooler I brought along, but he needed a
burger. So there I was at McDonalds for the first time in perhaps 10
years. Holy crap. I knew it was bad, but it's a hell of a culture
shock if you see it all at once. I imagine that the drive-thru is even
worse. If I was a medical industry planner I'd have been salivating at
the thought of all those present and future customers. The thing is
though, most of those people aren't going to have any money, because
there's only so many places that can profit by hiring the wheezing and
the waddling. Maybe our future will include waterways so that we can
float like penguins from home to desks to eateries to doctor's
offices. No more having to waddle in and out of bathrooms, or waste
money on TP when it could be spent so much better on secret sauce or
more extreme salting technology.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
Ok, I'll leave that one as it is and maybe we'll wind up discussing it in
the future. My first thought is that you may or may not be looking at the
full scope of medicine today, and what's required to make some of its
branches work. The less medicine one practices, the easier it is. And it's
much easier to reform some segments than others. Note that the clinic you
referred to limits itself to a narrow range of orthopedic procedures.
>
> Given its present trend, the government/medical/pharma complex will
> institute a new program of Eugenics within ten years.
I don't think that's the case. My fear, though, is that the lobbying power
of pharma, health insurance, and tort law is bigger than we are, given the
corrupt system of campaign financing given approval in recent years by the
Supreme Court, perversely in the name of the First Amendment.
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
Population control and tighter regulation of the economy head the list
of 'things-to-do' in the new century.
Given the power of 'universal health care', a mandatory single-payer
system, the practice of eugenics cannot be avoided. Calls to regulate
births and deaths can already be heard - some for births and some
against; some for deaths and some against. This will level out to
anti-birth and pro-death.
The proposed 'universal health care' will prove to be the vehicle to
socio-political control - intrusive and far-reaching.
1. You will be required to sign-up for a patient ID card. This
card number will be indexed to your SSN. New-borns will
automatically be assigned and scheduled. Mothers will gave no
options concerning this.
2. Periodic examinations will be required.
3. Behavioral, psychological and dietary rules will be imposed along
with medical prescriptions. A follow up assessment will be required.
Failure to comply or meet the above criteria will result in penalties.
What kind of penalties?
Anything from arrest and imprisonment to points. For example,
you go to jail if you don't pay and qualification for elective
procedures will be based on points.
Since the new centralized medical database will be connected to the
IRS, law enforcement, and the banking system, employment, loans and tax
matters will be considered in any medical decision. Similarly,
individual medical status will be reviewed when applying for a loan, a
job, marriage, passport, etc.
Your value to society will be partially based on your medical
status. Valuable people will get the best treatment.
So, unlike the "sleazy behavior" of car insurance companies, socialized
medicine American style will effect every aspect of your life.
BTW, this system will be followed by the cashless society.
Welcome to Global Governance.
dca...@krl.org
> Professionals involved in health care that I worked with agree that the
> system we have is a wreck, overall. The reform program bouncing around
> Congress right now lays some groundwork for improving it, but it doesn't get
> down to the things that will really reform the way medicine in practiced.
> That's going to be a big job that will make the current debate look like a
> picnic.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Is tort reform one of the things that will really reform the way
medicine is practised?
Dan
John R. Carroll
It hasn't made a difference where it's been tried.
The result was to verify something already known. Large or not, jury awards
add almost nothing to the cost of health-care in America.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:468d1f63-f766-4c63...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
It's an issue, largely because of the distortions it causes in practice. In
some states, for example, most of the Ob/Gyns have moved out because of the
insurance costs. And it leads to a lot of defensive practices that most
professionals resent and find frustrating.
But -- and we've discussed this before -- the OMB projects that tort reform
would save something on the order of $30 billion/year. That's out of a total
health care cost of something like $2 trillion, IIRC. So it's not much of a
cost issue.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
Except for the lyingscumbag lawyers who rake 1/3rd to 1/2 off the top.
John R. Carroll
In the places that tort reform has been implimented, like Texas, it hasn't
done a thing to lower malpractice costs for OB/GYN's or anyone else.
The insurers just moved on and emphasize other issues and keep rates high.
The one factor that isn't spoken is that the companies that offer
malpractice insurance are primarily investment funds. When the equity,
futures or bond markets crash, they push rates up as much as possible.
I wish I could point you to a document that supported this. It exists, I
just don't remember where.
Tort reform can't do much to influence poor investment choices and the
results.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:NYadnSqeMf33CK7W...@giganews.com...
If you look at how OMB did their calculations, you see that most of their
estimate -- something over 80% of it -- is attributed to potential
reductions in defensive care, rather than directly to insurance costs. The
malpractice insurance costs are surprisingly low, overall: they estimated
$3.4 billion in 2007.
Either way, it isn't the insurance costs, directly, that are going to save a
lot of money. Neither will "reforming" tort law. As it is, the big problem
with malpractice suits is that juries are crazy to make big awards and to
have a very broad idea of what constitutes malpractice. The argument for
"reform" is kind of a paradox in that it's conservatives who are pushing
hardest for it, but what they're pushing for is government regulation of
juries.
Since the amount is almost trivial, I haven't gotten worked up about it. We
have $2 trillion of other costs to worry about.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Rewarding the medical profession for better outcomes per dollar spent is
going to have to replace the current fee for service model.
medical practices have evolved in the last decade or so to include a lot of
the things that patients were being referred to clinics to have done
previously. Since there wasn't any real money in it for the doctor, there
was less ordered.
Today, all of this stuff is offered under the guise of "convenience" when,
in fact, the office prescribing and the provider are one in the same. More
testing = more revenue. That is just the sort of incentve that has to be
discouraged. An effectiveness database that cna be used as a bench mark
would be a good start. Were a doctor to order a test or treatment that was
poorly rated, he'd have to have some justification for doing it to be paid.
You could even have the bar set vey low to preclude underprescribing in some
instances.
What has to stop is MRI's, EKG's and all of his other crap being ordered up
as a matter of course. These aren't being ordered defensively today. They
are being ordered to boost profitability.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
'Sounds good to me. (I still want to know how the Japanese charge $85 for an
MRI, while our hospitals charge $800 - $1200).
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
Grossly understated.
Jury awards and the threat of lawsuits, rules the practice of medicine.
1. Jury awards are considerable and are not insignificant.
2. The potential for a jury award created patient induced fraud.
3. The insurance which doctors must buy for legal protection is
a major overhead and as with OB/GYN doctors, sometimes prohibitive.
4. Modern medicine is defensive medicine. Diagnostic tests and
treatments are performed which would ordinarily be considered
unnecessary and even damaging.
Underlying the practice of medicine itself is the administrative costs
to clinics and hospitals.
Jeff M
All of which accounts for less than 1 and 1/2% of the total cost of
healthcare.
Strabo
All? I don't think so.
I think the source figures are based on an incomplete analysis.
4. Modern medicine is defensive medicine. Diagnostic tests and
treatments are performed which would ordinarily be considered
unnecessary and even damaging.
Liability avoidance, malpractice protection, accounts for a portion of
most diagnostic and hospital billings.
Jeff M
It's been carefully, completely and repeatedly analyzed.
> 4. Modern medicine is defensive medicine. Diagnostic tests and
> treatments are performed which would ordinarily be considered
> unnecessary and even damaging.
>
> Liability avoidance, malpractice protection, accounts for a portion of
> most diagnostic and hospital billings.
Hardly "most". Moreover, there is little to link "defensive medicine"
practices to the actual risk of tort liability v. other factors like
peer review and the simple desire to get it right for the patient's benefit.
John R. Carroll
This is something that I ran across the other day that is as apt a
description of Strabo, and many others here, as I've seen.
At least in the context of this thread.
"The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large
population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly
tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake
analytical thought. --P.B. Medawar
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Size really does matter?
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Michael A. Terrell
"John R. Carroll" wrote:
>
> What has to stop is MRI's, EKG's and all of his other crap being ordered up
> as a matter of course. These aren't being ordered defensively today. They
> are being ordered to boost profitability.
Really? Then why does the VA use MRI, EKG, ultrasound and other
expensive equipment to treat Veterans? Where is their profit?
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
Michael A. Terrell
"John R. Carroll" wrote:
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
> >
> > 'Sounds good to me. (I still want to know how the Japanese charge $85
> > for an MRI, while our hospitals charge $800 - $1200).
>
> Size really does matter?
> LOL
They buy Chinese equipment that wouldn't meet FDA requirements.
Anyone want their hospital to buy medical equipment at Harbor Freight?
At one time, older medical equipment was shipped overseas when it no
longer met the US standards. Now, some has to be destroyed but not
everything.
Ed Huntress
Jeez. Whatever state you live in, I'm staying out of there. <g>
That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability to
treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is now, it's
not producing a very good result -- our health statistics don't stack up
very well against those of other developed countries. I don't find it
satisfying to find myself "free to choose" between private insurance
companies that are all going to rip me off, or to be treated in a hospital
that's charging $10,000/day for care that's equivalent to staying in a Day's
Inn with a visiting nurse and catered food from a high school cafeteria.
Anyway, I don't see it happening. That isn't the direction in which it's
going. For evidence, look at the systems they have in Europe. We aren't
going to go that far, at least in our lifetimes, and none of them are
remotely like the dystopia you describe.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>>> All of which accounts for less than 1 and 1/2% of the total cost of
>>> healthcare.
>> >
>>
>> All? I don't think so.
>>
>> I think the source figures are based on an incomplete analysis.
>
> It's been carefully, completely and repeatedly analyzed.
>
>> 4. Modern medicine is defensive medicine. Diagnostic tests and
>> treatments are performed which would ordinarily be considered
>> unnecessary and even damaging.
>>
>> Liability avoidance, malpractice protection, accounts for a portion of
>> most diagnostic and hospital billings.
>
> Hardly "most". Moreover, there is little to link "defensive medicine"
> practices to the actual risk of tort liability v. other factors like
> peer review and the simple desire to get it right for the patient's
> benefit.
Two points; one is that if fear of lawsuits plays such a major role in
medicine why is it that so many mistakes are still being made every year
that are damaging patients? Nearly 100,000 people per year die because
of malpractice. These are not itty bitty mistakes either. An example is
the case of the actor Dennis Quaid whose children were given an improper
dose of a blood thinning drug. The amount was something like 100 times
more than it should have been. That mistake almost cost two children's
lives. I suppose they were not worrying about being sued when they were
giving the medications. Maybe they should have. So it's the fact that
lots of big mistakes are made daily and it's the patients who suffer the
consequences. Tort reform only makes getting justice for those harmed
unfairly that much harder.
The other thing is that business doesn't want people to be able to sue
and cost medical companies money, it's bad for business. It's hard
enough for a normal person to sue a giant medical corporation when it
has damaged them. Without lawyers willing to challenge those
corporations ordinary people would have no recourse against those
businesses. Try paying out of your own pocket for a lawsuit that takes
years to settle. Most of those complaining about tort reform want to
help business interests and they want to make it harder for patients who
are harmed to collect. You take the profit out of it for the lawyers and
the patients who are hurt will have no one to advocate for them. Which
is the point of tort reform, to prevent patients from winning lawsuits
against companies whose negligence has damaged them. No wonder the right
wing is always trying to get "tort reform", huh?
Hawke
Hawke
Wrong again, Bozo. The Japanese make many of the MRI machines used in
the U.S. Toshiba is the manufacturer of a lot of them. Toshiba builds
them for the Japanese market and exports the same units to the U.S. The
difference in price in each country for an MRI is because we have
private insurance and they have national insurance. I saw a program
about health care in different countries. When they went to Japan they
said the MRI was 99 bucks and it was only 12 bucks to stay over night in
a hospital if you were in a four person room. When you see how much
better they do health care in other countries it's embarrassing what we
have here. If you cut your finger in Japan and got fifteen or twenty
stitches it would probably cost you 100 bucks or less. Here it would
probably cost five thousand. There's just no excuse for that.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> Jeff M wrote:
>
>>>> All of which accounts for less than 1 and 1/2% of the total cost of
>>>> healthcare.
>>> >
>>>
>>> All? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I think the source figures are based on an incomplete analysis.
>>
>> It's been carefully, completely and repeatedly analyzed.
>>
>>> 4. Modern medicine is defensive medicine. Diagnostic tests and
>>> treatments are performed which would ordinarily be considered
>>> unnecessary and even damaging.
>>>
>>> Liability avoidance, malpractice protection, accounts for a portion
>>> of most diagnostic and hospital billings.
>>
>> Hardly "most". Moreover, there is little to link "defensive
>> medicine" practices to the actual risk of tort liability v. other
>> factors like peer review and the simple desire to get it right for
>> the patient's benefit.
>
>
> Two points; one is that if fear of lawsuits plays such a major role in
> medicine why is it that so many mistakes are still being made every
> year that are damaging patients? Nearly 100,000 people per year die
> because of malpractice. These are not itty bitty mistakes either. An
> example is the case of the actor Dennis Quaid whose children were
> given an improper dose of a blood thinning drug. The amount was
> something like 100 times more than it should have been.
And they didn't die
>That mistake
Only made the news because of the parents.
--
John R. Carroll
Lib Loo
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hh3qdl$208$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
.
>
>
> Wrong again, Bozo. The Japanese make many of the MRI machines used in
... TV shows
Michael A. Terrell
Is that clown still ranting his usual BS?
D Murphy
news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
Ed,
I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background you
know that it's more nuanced than that.
If you look into those "studies" that rank the US low on the list when
compared to other nations, you'll find a lot of cherry picking and
biased weighting goes into the rankings. The WHO report is a good
example of convoluted formulaic methods. One example, the WHO
methodology penalizes countries that don't have a single payer
government run system. What difference does that make? Outcomes matter
more than someones idea of fairness.
How about rating the healthcare system by outcomes? You get diagnosed
with "A" after "B" number of years "C" percentage of patients are still
alive. The US healthcare system does quite well by that measure. Still
costly, but I'm not taking issue with that, since neither proposed bill
lowers costs. Quite the opposite in fact.
When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
there are differences in the way they are calculated between different
nations. There are also cultural differences; teen pregnancy rates, the
percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor education all lead to
higher infant mortality rates. The US government has been unwilling or
unable to deal with these issues. I see nothing in either bill that will
change these root causes for poor outcomes. Every day in the US drug
addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature labor.
That simply doesn't happen in Japan. Does our lack of ability to save
that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system compared to
Japan? I don't think so.
You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell the
whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming that a
really big and porky act of congress will improve infant mortality rates
takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability of government to do
anything well.
Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives an
automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that age
group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if that
is your measuring stick.
There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
highly regulated at both the State and Federal level. We don't need a
huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem. We surely don't
need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
requirement of legal citizenship.
There really is no need for US citizens to have to eat a shit sandwich
whenever the government takes care of minor issues that they legislated
into existance in the first place. We simply can't afford it anymore.
And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry. When
unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive service
with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their doorstep
sick or injured.
--
Dan
D Murphy
> If you look at how OMB did their calculations, you see that most of
> their estimate -- something over 80% of it -- is attributed to
> potential reductions in defensive care, rather than directly to
> insurance costs. The malpractice insurance costs are surprisingly low,
> overall: they estimated $3.4 billion in 2007.
And this is in a country that spends roughly $15 billion on cosmetic
procedures. So even if you eliminated the cost of malpractice insurance in
the US altogether, it's smaller than the cost of elective procedures.
The reason you hear so much about tort reform is that most practices are
essentially small businesses and their owners (the docs) see this cost as a
reduction in their income. In a small market it probably makes the
difference between a viable business and charity for a specialty practice.
As a total percentage of healthcare costs it's nothing, but when your name
is on the door and your sweating to make your monthly nut, it seems like a
bigger problem.
--
Dan
Jeff M
Dan
All a feature of the insurance industry.
Dan
Dan
The fear they talk of has to do with planning, not performance. As much
as I would like to agree with you, I do believe in this case you are
barking up the wrong tree.
> Maybe they should have.
That is the pseudoConservative-Republican tantric: nothing can be
accomplished without punishment or fear of punishment. It is an
extremely immature view of human consciousness. Don't get caught up in
their puerile fantasy world view: it leads to a very dismal world reality.
> So it's the fact that
> lots of big mistakes are made daily and it's the patients who suffer the
> consequences. Tort reform only makes getting justice for those harmed
> unfairly that much harder.
Actually, we DO need real tort reform, but the Republicans have never
offered anything except immunity for the insurance industry.
> The other thing is that business doesn't want people to be able to sue
> and cost medical companies money, it's bad for business. It's hard
> enough for a normal person to sue a giant medical corporation when it
> has damaged them. Without lawyers willing to challenge those
> corporations ordinary people would have no recourse against those
> businesses. Try paying out of your own pocket for a lawsuit that takes
> years to settle. Most of those complaining about tort reform want to
> help business interests and they want to make it harder for patients who
> are harmed to collect. You take the profit out of it for the lawyers and
> the patients who are hurt will have no one to advocate for them. Which
> is the point of tort reform, to prevent patients from winning lawsuits
> against companies whose negligence has damaged them. No wonder the right
> wing is always trying to get "tort reform", huh?
True enough.
Dan
Dan
> "John R. Carroll" wrote:
>> What has to stop is MRI's, EKG's and all of his other crap being ordered up
>> as a matter of course. These aren't being ordered defensively today. They
>> are being ordered to boost profitability.
>
>
> Really? Then why does the VA use MRI, EKG, ultrasound and other
> expensive equipment to treat Veterans? Where is their profit?
Your dog eats green jellybeans.
I mean, if we are going to offer total non-sequiturs, I might as well
join in.
Go back, re-read what was stated, and come back when you have an
on-topic statement to make.
Dan
Dan
> Lib Loo wrote:
>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:hh3qdl$208$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> .
>>>
>>> Wrong again, Bozo. The Japanese make many of the MRI machines used in
>> ... TV shows
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArqWqnJme1g
>
>
>
> Is that clown still ranting his usual BS?
Yep, LiebyLou is still here.
Dan
Dan
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
>> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
>> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
>> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
>
> Ed,
>
> I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
> result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background you
> know that it's more nuanced than that.
>
> If you look into those "studies" that rank the US low on the list when
> compared to other nations, you'll find a lot of cherry picking and
> biased weighting goes into the rankings.
What skews the rankings (properly so) is the fact that 25% of our
population does not have access to reasonable health care (care to guess
what color the vast majority of those people are?).
For the top 15% (and the top 10% in other countries who can get over
here and have the means to pay for it), we do have exemplary health
care. For the bulk 60%, our care is comparable to other developed
countries, and reasonably comparably expensive UNTIL a young person
comes down with a catastrophic illness.
> The WHO report is a good
> example of convoluted formulaic methods. One example, the WHO
> methodology penalizes countries that don't have a single payer
> government run system. What difference does that make? Outcomes matter
> more than someones idea of fairness.
That's because that indicator shows what percentage of the population
GETS the health care.
> How about rating the healthcare system by outcomes?
That's exactly what those studies DO...
> You get diagnosed
> with "A" after "B" number of years "C" percentage of patients are still
> alive. The US healthcare system does quite well by that measure.
For the top 75%, maybe, at quite a cost. For the bottom 25%, no, not
even close.
> Still
> costly, but I'm not taking issue with that, since neither proposed bill
> lowers costs. Quite the opposite in fact.
Says the Republicans who fought to keep all all cost-cutting measures
out of the bill (and partially succeeded).
> When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
> there are differences in the way they are calculated between different
> nations. There are also cultural differences; teen pregnancy rates, the
> percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor education all lead to
> higher infant mortality rates.
True, which is why they are included (they are HEALTH issues, after all).
> The US government has been unwilling or
> unable to deal with these issues.
Oh, they DEAL with the issues, all right. As the Rams deal with being a
good NFL team...
> I see nothing in either bill that will
> change these root causes for poor outcomes.
True enough. That is a completely separate issue - getting Republicans
and some Democrats to decriminalize drug abuse and get it into the
sphere it belongs: health care.
> Every day in the US drug
> addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature labor.
> That simply doesn't happen in Japan. Does our lack of ability to save
> that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system compared to
> Japan? I don't think so.
At some levels it does, but not at the level that this bill addresses -
it is a cultural difference, to be sure.
> You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell the
> whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming that a
> really big and porky act of congress will improve infant mortality rates
> takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability of government to do
> anything well.
Which is why no one has made such a statement...
> Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
> country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives an
> automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that age
> group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
> issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if that
> is your measuring stick.
And if that were the whole story, we might have agreement. It isn't (as
you well know), so we will disagree.
> There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
> existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
> highly regulated at both the State and Federal level. We don't need a
> huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem. We surely don't
> need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
> requirement of legal citizenship.
That is why many of us pushed hard for a public option. The mandate is
a necessity, how we handled it was optional.
> There really is no need for US citizens to have to eat a shit sandwich
> whenever the government takes care of minor issues that they legislated
> into existance in the first place. We simply can't afford it anymore.
Which is why we support this bill, even though it is greatly flawed.
REAL reform will only happen when Republicanism is eradicated or at
least pushed back under the rock it crawled out from.
> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
Interesting. would that you would argue against the Republican attack
on education, too!
No, to fix a problem, it must first be admitted. This bill (unlike the
attempt in 1993+) will do just that. The problem is our failed political
system (read: Republican Party). If >>A<< bill does not happen soon, no
reform will be possible for a couple of decades. Even with this bill we
may fail, but without it we WILL fail. The cost of failure is FAR
greater than the cost of attempting to address the failure.
> When
> unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive service
> with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their doorstep
> sick or injured.
Bullshit. Pure and simple, bullshit.
Dan
Dan
Boy, THAT is a class to miss. How does someone as ignorant as you get
to lie to poor unsuspecting students?
Dan
Dan
Which is, of course, why we need reform. We definitely DO NOT need the
Republican form of insurance company immunity,which will not help the
small businessman doctor in the least.
Dan
Jeff M
Because, when it comes to health care law and regulation, I have real
knowledge and real experience, instead of incessant infobahn bloviating,
misinformation and ignorant opinion, to rely upon. My class is always
full. I'm a rather popular speaker to professional medical groups, too.
I'm what they call an expert on the subject. It is amusing to me to
read the rants relating to healthcare here, though. I only wish I'd
saved some of the stupider examples, like some of yours, for my students
to pick apart and laugh at.
Ed Huntress
"D Murphy" <spam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NChZm.3044$8e4....@newsfe03.iad...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
>> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
>> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
>> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
>
> Ed,
>
> I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
> result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background you
> know that it's more nuanced than that.
Sure, it's complicated. But we spend roughly twice as much per capita for
healthcare (on the order of $7000) as almost all other states in the OECD
(approx. $3500 average). One would expect a result that was at least not
arguable. And, as you certainly know, we fall down on some key criteria.
>
> If you look into those "studies" that rank the US low on the list when
> compared to other nations, you'll find a lot of cherry picking and
> biased weighting goes into the rankings. The WHO report is a good
> example of convoluted formulaic methods. One example, the WHO
> methodology penalizes countries that don't have a single payer
> government run system. What difference does that make? Outcomes matter
> more than someones idea of fairness.
>
> How about rating the healthcare system by outcomes? You get diagnosed
> with "A" after "B" number of years "C" percentage of patients are still
> alive. The US healthcare system does quite well by that measure. Still
> costly, but I'm not taking issue with that, since neither proposed bill
> lowers costs. Quite the opposite in fact.
First, why are you suffering with A in the first place? Didn't your regular
checkups catch it in time to avoid a serious problem?
I think you see where I'm going here. The US health care system is broken
from top to bottom. We're very good at salvaging human wrecks that haven't
been cared for, checked up on, and so on. We're very poor at generalizing
the kind of care that prevents many of those wrecks from happening in the
first place. Just prenatal care, alone, sucks worse in the US than in any
other developed country, as a percentage of the population that gets care.
>
> When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
> there are differences in the way they are calculated between different
> nations. There are also cultural differences; teen pregnancy rates, the
> percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor education all lead to
> higher infant mortality rates. The US government has been unwilling or
> unable to deal with these issues.
The cultural differences are connected directly to availability of care;
generalized healthcare is part of the culture, or not, in our case, but it
is in many others. You can't prevent unwanted pregnancies or drug
addition but you can make big improvements in the amount of morbitity
and mortality they cause.
> I see nothing in either bill that will
> change these root causes for poor outcomes.
See how it's worked in Europe.
> Every day in the US drug
> addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature labor.
Right. We have a broken pre-natal care system.
> That simply doesn't happen in Japan.
Damned right. Good pre-natal care. Same for Europe, to a lesser degree.
> Does our lack of ability to save
> that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system compared to
> Japan? I don't think so.
Our lack of ability to reduce the number of life-threatening emergencies
like the one you describe means we have a bad health care system.
>
> You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell the
> whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming that a
> really big and porky act of congress will improve infant mortality rates
> takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability of government to do
> anything well.
>
But you're focusing on the wrong problem, Dan. The problem is a system
that's focused on fixing things that are broken. A good system focuses on
reducing breakage.
That's the big thing we need.
> Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
> country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives an
> automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that age
> group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
> issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if that
> is your measuring stick.
We should expect a marginally higher mortality rate among young adults,
but not a higher rate of morbidity from health problems. There are a lot of
measuring sticks besides simple mortality rates. From my work related to
the health care managed markets, I've seen a lot of ways of measuring
the state of a nation's health. I'm not relying on the kinds of crude
outcomes measures that Congressmen throw at the news media.
You're quite right that the proposed bills don't address many of the
important problems. But they're a start on the most fundamental,
consequential issue: affordable health care for all. If you want to look at
it in terms of dollars and cents, it isn't really a fairness issue. Lack of
affordable health care for all is a social issue that corrupts our society
in a variety of ways.
This should have Strabo stoking the boiler on his computer as we
speak. <g>
>
> There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
> existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
> highly regulated at both the State and Federal level.
That particular issue could be fixed with the stroke of a pen. The fact that
it hasn't been tells you how thoroughly rotten the entire system is.
> We don't need a
> huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem.
That's true, we don't. And I lay that problem squarely at the feet of the
conservatives in Congress who have fought this thing tooth and nail, and
have forced all of the lousy bargaining for votes. They don't have a
solution worth the powder to blow it to hell; the high estimate for the
savings that could result from limiting malpractice suits, taking
EVERYTHING in consideration, runs around $31 billion. Give them the
benefit of the doubt and say it's really three times higher than that. Then
look at the fact that our health care costs per capita run around 200%
those of most European countries, which have, at least, similar outcomes.
Then you're saying that the extreme high-end estimate is that torts raise
our health care costs (out of $2.1 trillion) by 5%. Five freaking percent.
And they harp on that as a "solution." Jesus.
> We surely don't
> need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
> requirement of legal citizenship.
So, go to single-payer. Either way, it's inevitable. We'll go broke if we
don't get started on it, and soon. The only question is how screwed up
the insurance, pharma, and AMA interests can make it. So far, they're
screwing it up pretty good.
>
> There really is no need for US citizens to have to eat a shit sandwich
> whenever the government takes care of minor issues that they legislated
> into existance in the first place. We simply can't afford it anymore.
What we can't afford anymore is a health care system that has no price
controls and no incentives in the system for them to occur. That's what
we have right now.
>
> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry. When
> unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive service
> with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their doorstep
> sick or injured.
>
> --
We do great repair work. For example, Gunner has had around $300,000
of the best cardio rebuilding work that you can get anywhere in the world.
We fix cardiovascular problems like nobody else. If you didn't get early
care,
this is the place to be. Likewise with cancer. Our oncology is the best --
and
they get lots of practice on people who didn't get early diagnosis.
Which is the problem. You take a much more informed view than most
people do, Dan, and I'm not disparaging it. But I think you're overlooking
the
big picture. Overall, our system costs twice as much per person as the
health care systems in most developed countries. Yet, we have to argue
over the quality of outcomes. That should be the key fact. Our system is a
wreck, and the untempered financial interests involved have made it so.
--
Ed Huntress
Lib Loo
"Jeff M" <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:KJ-dnTnT2oqGzqvW...@giganews.com...
Your expertise doesn't fit into Dan's model. :)
Jeff M
This is a fine example of that rarest of internet phenomena, an
intelligent and civil discussion.
Jeff M
Admittedly, I haven't posted much on the subject. I'm slightly curious
as to what Dan considers evidence of my ignorance.
Ed Huntress
Yeah, it's kind of freaky, huh? <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Michael A. Terrell
Dan wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > "John R. Carroll" wrote:
> >> What has to stop is MRI's, EKG's and all of his other crap being ordered up
> >> as a matter of course. These aren't being ordered defensively today. They
> >> are being ordered to boost profitability.
> >
> >
> > Really? Then why does the VA use MRI, EKG, ultrasound and other
> > expensive equipment to treat Veterans? Where is their profit?
>
> Your dog eats green jellybeans.
Sigh. I haven't had a dog for over 30 years, Boozo.
> I mean, if we are going to offer total non-sequiturs, I might as well
> join in.
>
> Go back, re-read what was stated, and come back when you have an
> on-topic statement to make.
Yawn. Come back when your opinion matters.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
D Murphy
<snip>
>> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
>> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
>> When unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive
>> service with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their
>> doorstep sick or injured.
>>
> Well stated. Wanna guest lecture to my next health care law class?
I'm hardly qualified. But thanks anyway. But if you ever need a
presentation on CNC Swiss, 5S, Multi Function Lathes, etc.. I'm the guy.
People ought not to believe the conclusion of any study until they read and
understand the methodology. Everyone has an agenda nowadays.
Congress should look at healthcare as though it were a production process
problem, where you wouldn't normally make massive sweeping changes without
a lot of definitive study. It's better to to tackle one issue at a time,
implement a fix, measure, repeat as needed, then move on to the next issue.
Otherwise things will spin quickly out of control.
--
Dan
Jeff M
A lot of that studying has been done. But there is a huge gap between
what those studies indicate as solutions, and politically viable
"solutions."
John R. Carroll
> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
> news:CuednfY0BpownqvW...@giganews.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
>>> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
>>> When unbiased measurements show that they provide the most
>>> responsive service with the best outcomes in the world when you
>>> show up on their doorstep sick or injured.
>>>
>> Well stated. Wanna guest lecture to my next health care law class?
>
> I'm hardly qualified. But thanks anyway. But if you ever need a
> presentation on CNC Swiss, 5S, Multi Function Lathes, etc.. I'm the
> guy.
>
> People ought not to believe the conclusion of any study until they
> read and understand the methodology. Everyone has an agenda nowadays.
>
> Congress should look at healthcare as though it were a production
> process problem, where you wouldn't normally make massive sweeping
> changes without a lot of definitive study.
Those studies have been done, Dan. This is much more like a corporate
turnaround where the changes are both sweeping as well as far reaching.Your
analogy implies that what we now have is working properly but isn't as
efficient as it could be. Cleaning and oiling an old beater isn't going to
cut the mustard here. It's time to invest in new technology.
Pre and post natal care have been mentioned in this thread and that's a
great example. It's an area with real bang for the buck and you actually end
up with multiple bangs when you tally the score. There isn't a single study
that says otherwise. It's a self licking ice cream cone.
>It's better to to tackle
> one issue at a time, implement a fix, measure, repeat as needed, then
> move on to the next issue. Otherwise things will spin quickly out of
> control.
Tell that to the guy currently running Ford Motor. He was hired to get busy
and turn Ford around in advance of catastrophic problems and he went right
to work with a chain saw in one hand and a plan in the other.
Health-care is out of control right now Dan, and has been for a while. How
else can you explain Gunner sticking the local health care community for
half a million dollars or fifteen percent year on year premium increases?
There isn't any way at all to explain the rescission process under any
reasonable set of rules.
--
John R. Carroll
D Murphy
news:QcsZm.4457$mr6....@newsfe08.iad:
> D Murphy wrote:
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
>>> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
>>> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
>>> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
>> result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background
>> you know that it's more nuanced than that.
>>
>> If you look into those "studies" that rank the US low on the list
>> when compared to other nations, you'll find a lot of cherry picking
>> and biased weighting goes into the rankings.
>
> What skews the rankings (properly so) is the fact that 25% of our
> population does not have access to reasonable health care (care to
> guess what color the vast majority of those people are?).
Not true. Everyone has access. Some are uninsured but they still get
treated. Even if 100% of Americans were covered by private insurance the
WHO ranking methodology would still penalize our system. The study
didn't take into account the ethnicity of the people not covered so it's
irrelevent to this discussion. But as a side note, I find it interesting
that in areas with strong "liberal" local government, minorities seem to
have high unemployment, low incomes, and poor public school systems.
They also get victimized by government contracts which favor unionized
laborers who are mostly white and live mostly outside the city in which
they are working. But they do give big campaign contributions, which is
what matters most to Democrats in urban areas.
>
> For the top 15% (and the top 10% in other countries who can get over
> here and have the means to pay for it), we do have exemplary health
> care. For the bulk 60%, our care is comparable to other developed
> countries, and reasonably comparably expensive UNTIL a young person
> comes down with a catastrophic illness.
Where do all of your statistics come from? They are surprisingly round
percentages which sets off my bullshit meter. It all sounds made up.
>
>
>> The WHO report is a good
>> example of convoluted formulaic methods. One example, the WHO
>> methodology penalizes countries that don't have a single payer
>> government run system. What difference does that make? Outcomes
>> matter more than someones idea of fairness.
>
> That's because that indicator shows what percentage of the population
> GETS the health care.
Nope.
>
>> How about rating the healthcare system by outcomes?
>
> That's exactly what those studies DO...
No they don't. They don't for example track five year survival rates for
cancers, heart attacks, etc. They simply measure infant mortality rates
and death rates of various age segments as well as life expectancy at
birth. Which only tells you that people are dying, but not why.
A country that has perfect healthcare, could have some large natural
disaster that kills a great number of people. Using the methodology you
prefer, countries that are prone to earthquake, tsunami, etc by
definition have poor healthcare. Sounds ridiculous to me.
>
>> You get diagnosed
>> with "A" after "B" number of years "C" percentage of patients are
>> still alive. The US healthcare system does quite well by that
>> measure.
>
> For the top 75%, maybe, at quite a cost. For the bottom 25%, no, not
> even close.
Top and bottom of what?
As far as cost goes, why is that a factor in the rating?
>
>> Still
>> costly, but I'm not taking issue with that, since neither proposed
>> bill lowers costs. Quite the opposite in fact.
>
> Says the Republicans who fought to keep all all cost-cutting measures
> out of the bill (and partially succeeded).
Not that it matters but the Republicans had zero input into either of
these bills. But previous to this they did expand Medicare benefits
which is a big part of what these bills do. Expansion = more cost.
>
>> When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
>> there are differences in the way they are calculated between
>> different nations. There are also cultural differences; teen
>> pregnancy rates, the percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor
>> education all lead to higher infant mortality rates.
>
> True, which is why they are included (they are HEALTH issues, after
> all).
Right. But using this issue as a red herring to pass a massive pork
laden bill that doesn't address the root cause of the problem is fraud.
>
>> The US government has been unwilling or
>> unable to deal with these issues.
>
> Oh, they DEAL with the issues, all right. As the Rams deal with being
> a good NFL team...
I'm trying to understand your logic here, so help me out. The government
has dealt with the issue, but we still have the problem. So the solution
is to let the government take over more problem areas? Why?
>
>> I see nothing in either bill that will
>> change these root causes for poor outcomes.
>
> True enough. That is a completely separate issue - getting
> Republicans and some Democrats to decriminalize drug abuse and get it
> into the sphere it belongs: health care.
Or you can eliminate poverty by giving people better educations and
better opportunities.
Most of the drugs you want legalized were once legal. Maybe you should
look into why the citizens way back when decided that access needed to
be regulated. Meanwhile look at all the benefits alcohol being legal has
for society. How many people does it kill? What percent of emergency
room patients are drunk? How many people booked for assault are
intoxicated? Etc...
>
> > Every day in the US drug
>> addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature
>> labor. That simply doesn't happen in Japan. Does our lack of ability
>> to save that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system
>> compared to Japan? I don't think so.
>
> At some levels it does, but not at the level that this bill addresses
> - it is a cultural difference, to be sure.
>
>> You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell
>> the whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming
>> that a really big and porky act of congress will improve infant
>> mortality rates takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability
>> of government to do anything well.
>
> Which is why no one has made such a statement...
Then you haven't been following the healthcare debate very closely.
>
>> Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
>> country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives
>> an automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that
>> age group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
>> issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if
>> that is your measuring stick.
>
> And if that were the whole story, we might have agreement. It isn't
> (as you well know), so we will disagree.
Actually, accidents are the leading cause of death among adolescents.
More so males than females. We just have much cooler ways to
accidentally kill ourselves due to our relative wealth.
On second thought these bills might help. They will certainly take away
some of that wealth.
>
>> There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
>> existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
>> highly regulated at both the State and Federal level. We don't need a
>> huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem. We surely don't
>> need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
>> requirement of legal citizenship.
>
> That is why many of us pushed hard for a public option. The mandate
> is a necessity, how we handled it was optional.
In the overall scheme of things, this issue should be handled by each
state in its own way. Not by the Federal government. It's a welfare
issue for the poor. For everyone else it should be their choice.
>
>> There really is no need for US citizens to have to eat a shit
>> sandwich whenever the government takes care of minor issues that they
>> legislated into existance in the first place. We simply can't afford
>> it anymore.
>
> Which is why we support this bill, even though it is greatly flawed.
> REAL reform will only happen when Republicanism is eradicated or at
> least pushed back under the rock it crawled out from.
Huh? Sorry, but if you want a dictatorship, there are plenty of them to
choose from elsewhere in the world. Or, feel free to amend the
Constitution. If you read the process is outlined within it. Good luck,
you'll need it.
>
>> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
>> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
>
> Interesting. would that you would argue against the Republican attack
> on education, too!
You are all over the place. Feel free to link to some stats that show
that outcomes here in the US are not among the best in the world.
And if you want to start another thread explaining how the Republicans
have managed to ruin public education when the left has had its jack
boots on the throat of that institution for decades, I'm in.
>
> No, to fix a problem, it must first be admitted.
Wrong. Problems either exist or they don't. They can be measured and
defined or they can not. In order to fix a problem you mest first
understand the nature of the problem, then address it. The road to hell
is paved with good intentions.
> This bill (unlike
> the attempt in 1993+) will do just that. The problem is our failed
> political system (read: Republican Party). If >>A<< bill does not
> happen soon, no reform will be possible for a couple of decades. Even
> with this bill we may fail, but without it we WILL fail. The cost of
> failure is FAR greater than the cost of attempting to address the
> failure.
Wow, do you have any actual facts to back up your steaming pile of
invective?
>
>> When
>> unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive
>> service with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their
>> doorstep sick or injured.
>
> Bullshit. Pure and simple, bullshit.
>
So you are pro bias?
Figures.
--
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
If the problems were superficial that would be the correct response
however health care in the United States is fundamentally broken. Major
systemic changes must occur.
Regrettably the correct cure, utilizing anti-trust laws to break up the
monopolies, are impossible given the propaganda power of the corporate
health complex.
People are dying from the lack of health care. Massive numbers cannot
get health care and wind up in emergency centers where the cost is many
fold greater than preventive care. The lack of pre/post natal care is
responsible for the increasing infant mortality rates.
The remainder are paying through the nose for profits and executive
bonuses. Many families are paying a third of their earnings for health
insurance!
Only major alterations in the health care system will suffice at this
late date. Maintaining the status quo only rewards the pirates.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
Probably only because of who the parents were.
>> That mistake
>
> Only made the news because of the parents.
But they would have if they had died.
But that's not the point. The point is that doctors, nurses, and medical
companies, are making mistakes all over the place and it is killing and
injuring thousands of people every year. When it's you that they have
messed up what can you do about it, sue? If you aren't rich you can
forget about it. That leaves going to lawyers who will represent you on
a contingency basis. They have to be willing to foot the bill to sue a
hospital or medical company. If they can't win and can't collect big
paydays they won't do it. Without them injured patients have nothing.
You do tort reform and all you accomplish is preventing injured or dead
patients from getting anything for what they suffered. Which is why the
right wing is so all fired hot to do tort reform. It'll keep the injured
and dead from collecting a dime.
Hawke
D Murphy
>
> "D Murphy" <spam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NChZm.3044$8e4....@newsfe03.iad...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
>>> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
>>> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
>>> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
>> result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background
>> you know that it's more nuanced than that.
>
> Sure, it's complicated. But we spend roughly twice as much per capita
> for healthcare (on the order of $7000) as almost all other states in
> the OECD (approx. $3500 average). One would expect a result that was
> at least not arguable. And, as you certainly know, we fall down on
> some key criteria.
Another useless measurement that irritates me is per capita spending. A
better indicator of value would be percent of GDP spent. As you know we
are still the most expensive, but rather than twice as expensive it's
maybe 5% more.
>
>>
>> If you look into those "studies" that rank the US low on the list
>> when compared to other nations, you'll find a lot of cherry picking
>> and biased weighting goes into the rankings. The WHO report is a good
>> example of convoluted formulaic methods. One example, the WHO
>> methodology penalizes countries that don't have a single payer
>> government run system. What difference does that make? Outcomes
>> matter more than someones idea of fairness.
>>
>> How about rating the healthcare system by outcomes? You get diagnosed
>> with "A" after "B" number of years "C" percentage of patients are
>> still alive. The US healthcare system does quite well by that
>> measure. Still costly, but I'm not taking issue with that, since
>> neither proposed bill lowers costs. Quite the opposite in fact.
>
> First, why are you suffering with A in the first place? Didn't your
> regular checkups catch it in time to avoid a serious problem?
>
> I think you see where I'm going here. The US health care system is
> broken from top to bottom. We're very good at salvaging human wrecks
> that haven't been cared for, checked up on, and so on. We're very poor
> at generalizing the kind of care that prevents many of those wrecks
> from happening in the first place. Just prenatal care, alone, sucks
> worse in the US than in any other developed country, as a percentage
> of the population that gets care.
Ed, this is the road the insurance companies went down right before our
costs shot way up. There was a time when you had to pay out of pocket
for most well care visits. Nowadays you pay nothing or a couple of bucks
anytime you go to the doctor. And costs went up. I'm not sure there's a
correlation, but when you ain't paying, you don't shop very hard either.
Longevity leads to higher costs no matter how you slice it. The unspoken
truth is that more people are living to be elderly. Assisted care living
and the last year of life for an elderly person are by far the biggest
expenses in our system.
Again, my issue isn't with costs anyway. It's was simply with the
implication that we don't get good results. By any reasonable measure we
get good results. Cost effective? Probably not.
>
>>
>> When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
>> there are differences in the way they are calculated between
>> different nations. There are also cultural differences; teen
>> pregnancy rates, the percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor
>> education all lead to higher infant mortality rates. The US
>> government has been unwilling or unable to deal with these issues.
>
> The cultural differences are connected directly to availability of
> care; generalized healthcare is part of the culture, or not, in our
> case, but it is in many others. You can't prevent unwanted pregnancies
> or drug addition but you can make big improvements in the amount of
> morbitity and mortality they cause.
I also believe we can make big improvements, but seeing as how these
people don't take advantage of existing programs that are free, what
makes you think they will take advantage of a new one?
>
>> I see nothing in either bill that will
>> change these root causes for poor outcomes.
>
> See how it's worked in Europe.
There is less than 1/10 of 1% difference between Europe and the US in
infant mortality rates. So in my mind, it's not working there either.
>
>> Every day in the US drug
>> addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature
>> labor.
>
> Right. We have a broken pre-natal care system.
>
>> That simply doesn't happen in Japan.
>
> Damned right. Good pre-natal care. Same for Europe, to a lesser
> degree.
We already have programs they don't take advantage of, again why would
they take advantage of this one?
>
>> Does our lack of ability to save
>> that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system compared
>> to Japan? I don't think so.
>
> Our lack of ability to reduce the number of life-threatening
> emergencies like the one you describe means we have a bad health care
> system.
And you continue to fail to tell me how either of these bills will fix
this alleged problem?
>
>>
>> You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell
>> the whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming
>> that a really big and porky act of congress will improve infant
>> mortality rates takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability
>> of government to do anything well.
>>
>
> But you're focusing on the wrong problem, Dan. The problem is a system
> that's focused on fixing things that are broken. A good system focuses
> on reducing breakage.
Nope. That is exactly what I'm focused on. My point was that these bills
do nothing to fix the root cause. I already know we have good outcomes
and the most responsive system in the world.
>
> That's the big thing we need.
>
>> Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
>> country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives
>> an automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that
>> age group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
>> issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if
>> that is your measuring stick.
>
> We should expect a marginally higher mortality rate among young
> adults, but not a higher rate of morbidity from health problems. There
> are a lot of measuring sticks besides simple mortality rates. From my
> work related to the health care managed markets, I've seen a lot of
> ways of measuring the state of a nation's health. I'm not relying on
> the kinds of crude outcomes measures that Congressmen throw at the
> news media.
Well every death for every demographic is measured and accounted for. I
cherry picked this stat because that is what the WHO report did.
Accidents are the leading cause of death for this age group in the US.
And as you might guess the rate is quite a bit higher for males. You can
pass all the healthcare reform you want, but wealthy kids will keep on
killing themselves in inventive ways here in the US because they have
have the wealth and free time to do so.
>
> You're quite right that the proposed bills don't address many of the
> important problems. But they're a start on the most fundamental,
> consequential issue: affordable health care for all. If you want to
> look at it in terms of dollars and cents, it isn't really a fairness
> issue. Lack of affordable health care for all is a social issue that
> corrupts our society in a variety of ways.
Agreed. But these bills don't do the trick. And I'm sick of "well it's a
start" because we can do a whole lot better. I also think that a free
market solution is possible and preferable.
A few years ago we were debating this topic and I came across a European
study that came to the conclusion that while the US healthcare system
was the most expensive, it also returned more than the cost difference
in terms of GDP through R&D and manufacturing. The conclusion was it was
the lack of price controls in the US that were responsible.
I'm certain goods and services can be provided at a better value without
price controls. It's done all the time. Heathcare is no different. Up to
this point government regulations have rigged the system in favor of
high prices and protection. Both of these bills continue the tradition
of picking favorites.
>
> This should have Strabo stoking the boiler on his computer as we
> speak. <g>
>
>>
>> There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
>> existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
>> highly regulated at both the State and Federal level.
>
> That particular issue could be fixed with the stroke of a pen. The
> fact that it hasn't been tells you how thoroughly rotten the entire
> system is.
Thanks to government. Right?
We need to be even more vigilant given the crowd in power now. I live
where they come from. It's not all rainbows and unicorns, far from it.
So far the process has been the antithesis of the transparency we were
promised. My experience tells me that's not a good sign.
>
>> We don't need a
>> huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem.
>
> That's true, we don't. And I lay that problem squarely at the feet of
> the conservatives in Congress who have fought this thing tooth and
> nail, and have forced all of the lousy bargaining for votes. They
> don't have a solution worth the powder to blow it to hell; the high
> estimate for the savings that could result from limiting malpractice
> suits, taking EVERYTHING in consideration, runs around $31 billion.
> Give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's really three times
> higher than that. Then look at the fact that our health care costs per
> capita run around 200% those of most European countries, which have,
> at least, similar outcomes. Then you're saying that the extreme
> high-end estimate is that torts raise our health care costs (out of
> $2.1 trillion) by 5%. Five freaking percent. And they harp on that as
> a "solution." Jesus.
Blaming conservatives is pretty weak at this point. They don't need a
single vote from them, so they really have minimal influence on the deal
making.
How do you explain Chris Dodd's pile-o'-pork?
The fact of the matter is that there are few real conservatives in the
Republican party and that both sides are out of touch.
>
>> We surely don't
>> need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
>> requirement of legal citizenship.
>
> So, go to single-payer. Either way, it's inevitable. We'll go broke if
> we don't get started on it, and soon. The only question is how screwed
> up the insurance, pharma, and AMA interests can make it. So far,
> they're screwing it up pretty good.
I don't think that single payer is inevitable nor is healthcare the
reason the nation is going broke.
>
>>
>> There really is no need for US citizens to have to eat a shit
>> sandwich whenever the government takes care of minor issues that they
>> legislated into existance in the first place. We simply can't afford
>> it anymore.
>
> What we can't afford anymore is a health care system that has no price
> controls and no incentives in the system for them to occur. That's
> what we have right now.
And neither of the bills changes that.
>
>>
>> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
>> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
>> When unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive
>> service with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their
>> doorstep sick or injured.
>>
>> --
>
> We do great repair work. For example, Gunner has had around $300,000
> of the best cardio rebuilding work that you can get anywhere in the
> world.
>
> We fix cardiovascular problems like nobody else. If you didn't get
> early care,
> this is the place to be. Likewise with cancer. Our oncology is the
> best -- and
> they get lots of practice on people who didn't get early diagnosis.
So how far down the road to tyranny are you willing to go? Do you send
armed police to Gunner's house every six months to draag him off for his
semi-annual government approved inspection? Do you toos him in the gilag
every time you catch him smoking? And what about genetics? Do you have
to pass a DNA test befor procreating?
>
> Which is the problem. You take a much more informed view than most
> people do, Dan, and I'm not disparaging it. But I think you're
> overlooking the
> big picture. Overall, our system costs twice as much per person as the
> health care systems in most developed countries. Yet, we have to argue
> over the quality of outcomes. That should be the key fact. Our system
> is a wreck, and the untempered financial interests involved have made
> it so.
>
Ed, the big picture is liberty. If you can afford to pay more for you
care then you should be free to do so. If you want to eat cheeseburgers,
smoke, and drink to excess, then more power to you. Just as you should
be free to eat right, excersize, and get regular check ups. And if you
have the money, you ought to be able to pay for full body scans whenever
your neurosis tells you to get it done.
There ought to be safety nets and minimum care for all. But the less
power the government has to dictate how we live our lives, the better.
It's worth remembering, they are the ones that screwed up the system we
have now.
--
Dan
D Murphy
> This is a fine example of that rarest of internet phenomena, an
> intelligent and civil discussion.
Shhh. Or someone will ruin it.
--
Dan
D Murphy
>> Liability avoidance, malpractice protection, accounts for a portion of
>> most diagnostic and hospital billings.
>
> All a feature of the insurance industry.
Yeah, a system run with the dedication and enthusiasm of a postal worker
and no recourse for those damaged or killed by it will be fantastic.
I can't wait.
--
Dan
rayk...@rnsmte.com
A bullit or a rope will cure his rabid liberelism in less than 3 years
Hawke
What gives you the idea that health care is a subject that not much is
known about? Why do you think we don't already know a lot about health
care? We tried to implement it in 1993. The definitive studies have
already been done. All kinds of countries have nationalized health care.
There are all kinds of systems and all kinds of information about what
they cost, how effective they are, and so on.
The health care question isn't one where we don't know the facts and
don't know what to do. We know what to do but we can't do it because a
small group of wealthy and influential special interest groups are using
their influence to prevent any changes from being made. They have done
this for decades. It's a well known fact that the private, for profit,
health care system we now have is not working and will eventually
bankrupt the country and is never going to provide care to all
Americans. Other countries are already providing care to everyone for
much less money. We could do the same but a small faction is preventing
it. Once that faction is brushed aside the changes will come quickly
because we know what needs to be done. Saying we need time to learn is
just a stalling for time tactic from the protectors of the status quo.
We're ready to move now. The needed changes are finally about to happen
but will take some time to get right.
Hawke
D Murphy
news:dfsZm.4459$mr6....@newsfe08.iad:
I don't see how eliminating the small businessman helps the small
businessman either. Nor do I see how eliminating recourse through lawsuits
helps consumers. Both are features of most single-payer government run
systems.
I don't know what the "Republican Plan" is, so I can't comment. Much like
the Democrats they don't seem to have a cohesive plan. The only thing they
have going for them is that they lack the power to jam a wad of poorly
thought out legislation up our asses, at midnight, during the holiday
season.
--
Dan
Jeff M
Excellent!
rayk...@rnsmte.com
> Ed, the big picture is liberty. If you can afford to pay more for you
> care then you should be free to do so. If you want to eat cheeseburgers,
> smoke, and drink to excess, then more power to you. Just as you should
> be free to eat right, excersize, and get regular check ups. And if you
> have the money, you ought to be able to pay for full body scans whenever
> your neurosis tells you to get it done.
>
> There ought to be safety nets and minimum care for all. But the less
> power the government has to dictate how we live our lives, the better.
> It's worth remembering, they are the ones that screwed up the system we
> have now.
>
> --
>
> Dan
WELL SAID!!!
Hawke
>>> We do great repair work. For example, Gunner has had around $300,000
>>> of the best cardio rebuilding work that you can get anywhere in the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> We fix cardiovascular problems like nobody else. If you didn't get early
>>> care,
>>> this is the place to be. Likewise with cancer. Our oncology is the
>>> best -- and
>>> they get lots of practice on people who didn't get early diagnosis.
>>>
>>> Which is the problem. You take a much more informed view than most
>>> people do, Dan, and I'm not disparaging it. But I think you're
>>> overlooking the
>>> big picture. Overall, our system costs twice as much per person as the
>>> health care systems in most developed countries. Yet, we have to argue
>>> over the quality of outcomes. That should be the key fact. Our system is
>>> a
>>> wreck, and the untempered financial interests involved have made it so.
>>>
>> This is a fine example of that rarest of internet phenomena, an
>> intelligent and civil discussion.
>
> Yeah, it's kind of freaky, huh? <g>
>
It's kind of like finding a meteorite. Doesn't happen often but when it
does it's kind of neat. You have to notice that no right wingers were
involved either. That's important.
Hawke
Lib Loo
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M6ednR-xxOMbCKvW...@earthlink.com...
>
> Dan wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> > "John R. Carroll" wrote:
>> >> What has to stop is MRI's, EKG's and all of his other crap being
>> >> ordered up
>> >> as a matter of course. These aren't being ordered defensively today.
>> >> They
>> >> are being ordered to boost profitability.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really? Then why does the VA use MRI, EKG, ultrasound and other
>> > expensive equipment to treat Veterans? Where is their profit?
>>
>> Your dog eats green jellybeans. <hic>
>
>
> Sigh. I haven't had a dog for over 30 years, Boozo.
LOL, I was going to correct your spelling of Bozo until I realized you were
responding to Dan. Looks like you got it right after all.
Michael A. Terrell
A 'Boozo' is a drunken clown, for those who aren't familiar with the
term. :)
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4b365d3b$0$4979$607e...@cv.net:
>
>>
>> "D Murphy" <spam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:NChZm.3044$8e4....@newsfe03.iad...
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>> news:4b34da5a$0$31280$607e...@cv.net:
>>>
>>>> That's quite a dystopic view, Strabo, but it's true that our ability
>>>> to treat people has outstripped our ability to pay for it. As it is
>>>> now, it's not producing a very good result -- our health statistics
>>>> don't stack up very well against those of other developed countries.
>>>
>>> Ed,
>>>
>>> I read that glurg about our "health statistics not producing a good
>>> result" everytime healthcare is talked about. With your background
>>> you know that it's more nuanced than that.
>>
>> Sure, it's complicated. But we spend roughly twice as much per capita
>> for healthcare (on the order of $7000) as almost all other states in
>> the OECD (approx. $3500 average). One would expect a result that was
>> at least not arguable. And, as you certainly know, we fall down on
>> some key criteria.
>
> Another useless measurement that irritates me is per capita spending. A
> better indicator of value would be percent of GDP spent. As you know we
> are still the most expensive, but rather than twice as expensive it's
> maybe 5% more.
Ha-ha! A little statistical trick, perpetuated by Bruce Bartlett and some
other right-wing pundits. The truth is that we spend roughly 50% more as a
percentage of GDP:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx
Yeah, it's 5% more as a total percentage of GDP. It's 50% more as a
percentage of their health care expenditures. <g>
There's more b.s. coming from the right on this subject than you can keep up
with. They're trying the full-court press: keep it pouring in so fast that
no one can follow what they're saying.
Our costs are 50% higher even as a percentage of GDP, and even in comparison
with other countries with high incomes. Sweden, for example, spends 8.2% of
its GDP on health care. We spend 13.6%. You can see the shell game Bartlett
is playing.
Also, the per-capita cost is indeed the most significant number. The amount
per capita is what each person costs. If it costs us twice as much per
person, it....costs us twice as much per person. Even when incomes are
similar. Sweden's per-capita income is even higher than ours, but their
per-capita health care expenditures are less than HALF of ours. That's all
in actual dollars, as well as in PPP.
*IF* you have insurance. That's what this whole issue was trying to deal
with in the first place.
>
> Longevity leads to higher costs no matter how you slice it. The unspoken
> truth is that more people are living to be elderly. Assisted care living
> and the last year of life for an elderly person are by far the biggest
> expenses in our system.
Right. Keeping people alive longer may cost more money, all else being
equal. But if their health is good, the data show that the last six months
of care cost about the same whether you have a universal health care system,
or not. The difference is that they live a little longer with universal
health care and their quality-of-life (QOF) is somewhat higher until the
last six months, at which time they become roughly equal.
>
> Again, my issue isn't with costs anyway. It's was simply with the
> implication that we don't get good results. By any reasonable measure we
> get good results. Cost effective? Probably not.
Right. Not cost effective. Not any better results than the other developed
countries; by most measures, slightly worse.
But, again, one would expect much better results here, whether you measure
it in terms of twice the cost per capita, or 50% higher costs as a
percentage of GDP.
>
>>
>>>
>>> When you include infant mortality rates into the formulas, right away
>>> there are differences in the way they are calculated between
>>> different nations. There are also cultural differences; teen
>>> pregnancy rates, the percentage of drug addicted mothers, and poor
>>> education all lead to higher infant mortality rates. The US
>>> government has been unwilling or unable to deal with these issues.
>>
>> The cultural differences are connected directly to availability of
>> care; generalized healthcare is part of the culture, or not, in our
>> case, but it is in many others. You can't prevent unwanted pregnancies
>> or drug addition but you can make big improvements in the amount of
>> morbitity and mortality they cause.
>
> I also believe we can make big improvements, but seeing as how these
> people don't take advantage of existing programs that are free, what
> makes you think they will take advantage of a new one?
Existing "free" programs mostly stink, or are inaccessible. My 91-year-old
aunt is surrounded by family practice doctors, but she has to travel half
the length of Manhatten to reach the nearest free clinic. Try that when
you're 91.
Other evidence comes from countries where they have universal care. They
have pretty good usage levels by the poor.
>
>>
>>> I see nothing in either bill that will
>>> change these root causes for poor outcomes.
>>
>> See how it's worked in Europe.
>
> There is less than 1/10 of 1% difference between Europe and the US in
> infant mortality rates. So in my mind, it's not working there either.
Huh? The US ranks 46 (CIA Factbook) or 33 (UN). Our infant mortality is 50%
higher than Sweden, Spain, France, or Germany. Where are you getting those
numbers?
But that's only part of the picture. We also have a pre-term birth rate
that's 50% higher than that of Europe. Although the data on pre-term births
and birth defects is equivocal, we do have problems with prenatal care, of
which the premature birth rate likely is at least partly due.
>
>>
>>> Every day in the US drug
>>> addicted pregnant women show up in emergency rooms in premature
>>> labor.
>>
>> Right. We have a broken pre-natal care system.
>>
>>> That simply doesn't happen in Japan.
>>
>> Damned right. Good pre-natal care. Same for Europe, to a lesser
>> degree.
>
> We already have programs they don't take advantage of, again why would
> they take advantage of this one?
Take a deep, hard look into some of those "programs." And look at their
geographical distribution. Then say you don't have a car.
>
>>
>>> Does our lack of ability to save
>>> that baby's life really mean we have a bad healthcare system compared
>>> to Japan? I don't think so.
>>
>> Our lack of ability to reduce the number of life-threatening
>> emergencies like the one you describe means we have a bad health care
>> system.
>
> And you continue to fail to tell me how either of these bills will fix
> this alleged problem?
They won't. At best, they're a start toward universal health care. There's a
whole series of expected, or hoped-for, outcomes from that, starting with a
reduction of emergency-room care for minor illnesses. What we know for sure
is that the system we have now sucks and costs twice as much as it should.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You know as well as I do that a measurement on its own doesn't tell
>>> the whole story. It merely indicates there is a problem. Assuming
>>> that a really big and porky act of congress will improve infant
>>> mortality rates takes a giant leap of unfounded faith in the ability
>>> of government to do anything well.
>>>
>>
>> But you're focusing on the wrong problem, Dan. The problem is a system
>> that's focused on fixing things that are broken. A good system focuses
>> on reducing breakage.
>
> Nope. That is exactly what I'm focused on. My point was that these bills
> do nothing to fix the root cause. I already know we have good outcomes
> and the most responsive system in the world.
You have to start somewhere. Without universal care, you still have
hospitals saddled with an untenable problem. Without government involvement
in drug prices, you still have drugs that cost at least twice as much as in
any other developed country. Without controls on health care insurers, you
still have a system that makes more money by allowing medical costs to rise
than by increasing the number of lives they insure. And the latter is a fact
that most people seem to ignore, or simply don't understand. Most of the
growth in health care insurance company profits comes from rising medical
costs -- something like five times as much as from increasing lives covered.
They make a percentage of the gross. That's the way it works with an
oligopoly.
>
>>
>> That's the big thing we need.
>>
>>> Death rates of 15-24 year olds are probably going to be higher in a
>>> country like the US where a high percentage of that age group drives
>>> an automobile. We also have a high rate of homicide deaths in that
>>> age group in urban areas. Neither bill proposes any solution to those
>>> issues. So it won't improve our standings according to the WHO if
>>> that is your measuring stick.
>>
>> We should expect a marginally higher mortality rate among young
>> adults, but not a higher rate of morbidity from health problems. There
>> are a lot of measuring sticks besides simple mortality rates. From my
>> work related to the health care managed markets, I've seen a lot of
>> ways of measuring the state of a nation's health. I'm not relying on
>> the kinds of crude outcomes measures that Congressmen throw at the
>> news media.
>
> Well every death for every demographic is measured and accounted for. I
> cherry picked this stat because that is what the WHO report did.
> Accidents are the leading cause of death for this age group in the US.
> And as you might guess the rate is quite a bit higher for males. You can
> pass all the healthcare reform you want, but wealthy kids will keep on
> killing themselves in inventive ways here in the US because they have
> have the wealth and free time to do so.
Dead kids are not what's driving our life expectancy rates. Compare the US
and Germany in those WHO statistics, for example. The number of people who
die in the US at age 65 - 74 is ten times higher than the number who die at
ages 15 - 24, and the US figures for mortality at every older age stay
higher than those of Germany for every age group until you reach age 65.
But those tables are tough to analyze. I spent months with those and other
tables, just looking at mortalities and morbidities for metabolic diseases.
I have to construct Excel graphs just to see where the data is taking me. I
can't say for sure how they work out for overall mortality rates.
>
>>
>> You're quite right that the proposed bills don't address many of the
>> important problems. But they're a start on the most fundamental,
>> consequential issue: affordable health care for all. If you want to
>> look at it in terms of dollars and cents, it isn't really a fairness
>> issue. Lack of affordable health care for all is a social issue that
>> corrupts our society in a variety of ways.
>
> Agreed. But these bills don't do the trick. And I'm sick of "well it's a
> start" because we can do a whole lot better. I also think that a free
> market solution is possible and preferable.
>
> A few years ago we were debating this topic and I came across a European
> study that came to the conclusion that while the US healthcare system
> was the most expensive, it also returned more than the cost difference
> in terms of GDP through R&D and manufacturing. The conclusion was it was
> the lack of price controls in the US that were responsible.
I saw that report as well, and reported it and linked to it here. It was
done for the EU, as I recall.
Those pharma companies were my employers's clients -- the source of my
paychecks -- for over four years. Maybe the EU report was right, and maybe
it wasn't. What it *didn't* say is what would happen if the US followed the
rest of the world and put price controls on drugs.
This much I can tell you: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (one of
the very best), we spend $220 billion in the US for prescription drugs each
year, and the growth rate is one of the highest anywhere in health care.
Using the rule of thumb that we're spending 2.5 times as much as the average
OECD company for drugs, we're paying a premium of roughly $130 billion. Are
we getting an extra $130 billion out of the deal, in terms of jobs and
corporate taxes, etc.?
BLS says there are 289,800 pharma workers in the US. If we're making out,
that means that we're gaining $457,000 for each one of those jobs by paying
the extra $130 billion -- over and above what those workers would be doing
and returning to the economy otherwise. I don't think so. Maybe, but I'd
have to see some more numbers to believe it. And it says nothing about how
many jobs we'd have, or what they'd return to the economy if we, like
everyone else, had drug price controls.
>
> I'm certain goods and services can be provided at a better value without
> price controls. It's done all the time. Heathcare is no different. Up to
> this point government regulations have rigged the system in favor of
> high prices and protection. Both of these bills continue the tradition
> of picking favorites.
I don't see evidence that high prices are the result of government
regulations. Having worked in the industry, I'd say they're mostly the
result of a *lack* of regulations. Again, there is no private entity in the
industry that has a real interest in lowering prices -- not pharma, not the
insurers, not hospitals, and not doctors. And there is nothing like real
competition that could hold prices down. Nor can there be. Health care is
one of the most perfect examples of structural market failure, as economists
use the term. It's wall-to-wall perverse incentives, and little or none of
it has anything to do with the government.
>
>>
>> This should have Strabo stoking the boiler on his computer as we
>> speak. <g>
>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of problems with healthcare to be sure. The pre-
>>> existing condition issue is a good example. Insurance companies are
>>> highly regulated at both the State and Federal level.
>>
>> That particular issue could be fixed with the stroke of a pen. The
>> fact that it hasn't been tells you how thoroughly rotten the entire
>> system is.
>
> Thanks to government. Right?
For pre-existing conditions to be removed as a price-setting condition for
insurers, it would require a government regulation for them to do so. The
free market wants to slice up insured communities into the tiniest possible
slices, and to price each one according to risk factors and actuarials. A
perfect system for them would be one in which the only people who could get
insurance were those who had the lowest chance of needing it. At the other
end, insurance is not available at any price. I actually faced that for
nearly a year, in the '70s, and was completely barefoot. When NJ forced the
insurers to change that policy several of them left the state and headed for
the states with the most cowardly legislatures. They had plenty to choose
from.
So if by "thanks to the government" you mean they've been in the pocket of
the insurance companies and have been too cowardly to enact such
legislation, the answer is yes. An unregulated health care insurance
industry is useless, except as a money-making machine for themselves. They
don't need many of us. The less regulation they face, the less they have to
pay out. They can make out well with quite a small enrollment, if they don't
have to pay much out. But we need them, and so do hospitals and doctors.
Since they're an oligopoly and they act more or less in concert, like all
oligopolies, they're in charge of the system. And they have great lobbyists
to enforce their power.
>
> We need to be even more vigilant given the crowd in power now. I live
> where they come from. It's not all rainbows and unicorns, far from it.
> So far the process has been the antithesis of the transparency we were
> promised. My experience tells me that's not a good sign.
>
>>
>>> We don't need a
>>> huge and costly pork filled act to fix this problem.
>>
>> That's true, we don't. And I lay that problem squarely at the feet of
>> the conservatives in Congress who have fought this thing tooth and
>> nail, and have forced all of the lousy bargaining for votes. They
>> don't have a solution worth the powder to blow it to hell; the high
>> estimate for the savings that could result from limiting malpractice
>> suits, taking EVERYTHING in consideration, runs around $31 billion.
>> Give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's really three times
>> higher than that. Then look at the fact that our health care costs per
>> capita run around 200% those of most European countries, which have,
>> at least, similar outcomes. Then you're saying that the extreme
>> high-end estimate is that torts raise our health care costs (out of
>> $2.1 trillion) by 5%. Five freaking percent. And they harp on that as
>> a "solution." Jesus.
>
> Blaming conservatives is pretty weak at this point. They don't need a
> single vote from them, so they really have minimal influence on the deal
> making.
Yeah, they do. They need the few conservative Democrats. They can't get even
a single Republican in the Senate.
>
> How do you explain Chris Dodd's pile-o'-pork?
It's a pile of pork. What explanation is needed? That's what it took to
twist the enough arms.
>
> The fact of the matter is that there are few real conservatives in the
> Republican party and that both sides are out of touch.
An oversimplificiation. I don't know what you mean by "real conservatives,"
but if there are few real ones in the Republican party, we'd be in real
trouble if there were.
>
>>
>>> We surely don't
>>> need a law that makes buying a service from a private company a
>>> requirement of legal citizenship.
>>
>> So, go to single-payer. Either way, it's inevitable. We'll go broke if
>> we don't get started on it, and soon. The only question is how screwed
>> up the insurance, pharma, and AMA interests can make it. So far,
>> they're screwing it up pretty good.
>
> I don't think that single payer is inevitable nor is healthcare the
> reason the nation is going broke.
It's a matter of arithmetic. Look at what we're spending now -- 13.9% of
GDP -- and at the growth trend line. Note how the line slopes versus
reasonable projections of overall economic growth. Now weep.
Well, you picked a bad example. In his case, I might. d8-)
> Do you toos him in the gilag
> every time you catch him smoking?
Hmmm....are the gulags still open? Are they taking new tenants?
> And what about genetics? Do you have
> to pass a DNA test befor procreating?
You're letting your imagination go over the top, Dan. Look at the rest of
the developed world. They get it. We don't.
>
>>
>> Which is the problem. You take a much more informed view than most
>> people do, Dan, and I'm not disparaging it. But I think you're
>> overlooking the
>> big picture. Overall, our system costs twice as much per person as the
>> health care systems in most developed countries. Yet, we have to argue
>> over the quality of outcomes. That should be the key fact. Our system
>> is a wreck, and the untempered financial interests involved have made
>> it so.
>>
>
> Ed, the big picture is liberty. If you can afford to pay more for you
> care then you should be free to do so. If you want to eat cheeseburgers,
> smoke, and drink to excess, then more power to you. Just as you should
> be free to eat right, excersize, and get regular check ups. And if you
> have the money, you ought to be able to pay for full body scans whenever
> your neurosis tells you to get it done.
Making it a question of "liberty," to me, is absurd. I don't think that
universal healthcare will interfere with anyone's liberty. Any suggestion
that has been proposed leaves open the opportunity for anyone to get further
care if they want to pay for it. And nothing proposed would make you give up
whatever coverage you have or want.
It's a red herring, and a particularly smelly one, IMO.
>
> There ought to be safety nets and minimum care for all. But the less
> power the government has to dictate how we live our lives, the better.
> It's worth remembering, they are the ones that screwed up the system we
> have now.
No. We're the ones who screwed up the system. For the last couple of
decades, the government has just been jerking its knee to keep tune with
what we say we want. If you and enough like-minded people tell the
government that you want your liberty and that to you it means no universal
care, then that's what you'll get.
For over two decades we've been wrestling with universal health care. Now
we're close to being able to take the first step. This bill is not going to
do the whole job, but unless it's enacted, and we make a start toward
getting the lobbyists back in their cages, it may not happen for another two
or three decades.
There are lots of things wrong with this bill as it stands, but waiting for
the perfect one means waiting forever. There are too many entrenched
financial interests who want NO change, and that goal is almost within their
grasp.
But maybe not quite. We can go with this bill and take a chance that it
won't help us with the next step, which is getting costs under control. If
it doesn't work, we may go broke.
Or we can do nothing; in which case, we'll surely go broke.
--
Ed Huntress
D Murphy
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:27:17 +0000, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
>> news:CuednfY0BpownqvW...@giganews.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> And to just make blanket statements that the US healthcare system
>>>> produces poor results is unfair to those who work in the industry.
>>>> When unbiased measurements show that they provide the most responsive
>>>> service with the best outcomes in the world when you show up on their
>>>> doorstep sick or injured.
>>>>
>>> Well stated. Wanna guest lecture to my next health care law class?
>>
>> I'm hardly qualified. But thanks anyway. But if you ever need a
>> presentation on CNC Swiss, 5S, Multi Function Lathes, etc.. I'm the guy.
>>
>> People ought not to believe the conclusion of any study until they read
>> and understand the methodology. Everyone has an agenda nowadays.
>>
>> Congress should look at healthcare as though it were a production
>> process problem, where you wouldn't normally make massive sweeping
>> changes without a lot of definitive study. It's better to to tackle one
>> issue at a time, implement a fix, measure, repeat as needed, then move
>> on to the next issue. Otherwise things will spin quickly out of control.
>
> If the problems were superficial that would be the correct response
> however health care in the United States is fundamentally broken. Major
> systemic changes must occur.
Nonsense. We have the most responsive system in the world. In terms of
outcomes we are also ranked among the best in the world in every catagory.
The problem is affordability and coverage.
The proof that the government is incapable of running a single payer system
is clear. All you had to do was watch the process it went through to
produce two pork laden bills that if implemented will make costs go up
while covering no additional citizens right away.
>
> Regrettably the correct cure, utilizing anti-trust laws to break up the
> monopolies, are impossible given the propaganda power of the corporate
> health complex.
And you expect the crooked politicians who regulated us into our current
system, to suddenly act in our best interests instead of their own?
>
> People are dying from the lack of health care. Massive numbers cannot
> get health care and wind up in emergency centers where the cost is many
> fold greater than preventive care. The lack of pre/post natal care is
> responsible for the increasing infant mortality rates.
I hear this over and over again. But our mortality rates are good and our
outcomes are the best in totality. The problem is paying for the results
with patients who have no coverage.
>
> The remainder are paying through the nose for profits and executive
> bonuses. Many families are paying a third of their earnings for health
> insurance!
A highly regulated industry on both the state and federal level. And it's
another red herring like tort reform. If you eliminated all health
insurance profits, it would lower the total cost of healthcare in the US by
roughly 1%.
People also make the false assumption that eliminating insurance companies
eliminates overhead. Just look at the giant bureaucracies all countries
with a single-payer system have. Then consider that in the US, government
employees are compensated at a far higher level than private sector
employees.
>
> Only major alterations in the health care system will suffice at this
> late date. Maintaining the status quo only rewards the pirates.
>
Then why does the bill collect tax for five years before additional
benefits kick in? If we can wait five years for reform, we can spend a few
more months coming up with better solutions.
--
Dan
Ed Huntress
"sittingduck" <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEDE89081BDEdu...@nomail.afraid.org...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> But you're focusing on the wrong problem, Dan. The problem is a system
>> that's focused on fixing things that are broken. A good system focuses on
>> reducing breakage.
>>
>
> either.
>
> The current attempt at healthcare "reform" is a joke. The food industry
> and
> healthcare/drug industries are making far too much money of ignorant fools
> hooked on junk food. All it's going to do is throw thousands and thousands
> more people into a fucked up system.
>
> My republican side thinks the stupid fuckers should just get fat, get
> diabetes, and die without any help. Why should I pay into a system that
> these
> leeches will overload and make horribly expensive?
Because they're going to anyway. There's no way that you can stop them. So
the choices are not whether to let people die, but how to keep them from
overloading the system. The first thing is to keep them from overloading the
ERs. That's really costing us.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
Nonsense. America treats catastrophic illness well and fails miserably
in prevention. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
> In terms of
> outcomes we are also ranked among the best in the world in every
> catagory.
More nonsense, show cites for outlandish claims.
> The problem is affordability and coverage.
That is but the lesser problem. Availability and affordability are more
significant.
> The proof that the government is incapable of running a single payer
> system is clear.
Heh, you do have a penchant for stating the opposite of reality.
Medicare is invariably rated higher in terms of care and service than
private providers.
> All you had to do was watch the process it went through
> to produce two pork laden bills that if implemented will make costs go
> up while covering no additional citizens right away.
How does a political process in either direction substantiate your false
claims above?
>> Regrettably the correct cure, utilizing anti-trust laws to break up the
>> monopolies, are impossible given the propaganda power of the corporate
>> health complex.
>
> And you expect the crooked politicians who regulated us into our current
> system, to suddenly act in our best interests instead of their own?
Try asking a rational question and you might get an answer.
>> People are dying from the lack of health care. Massive numbers cannot
>> get health care and wind up in emergency centers where the cost is many
>> fold greater than preventive care. The lack of pre/post natal care is
>> responsible for the increasing infant mortality rates.
>
> I hear this over and over again. But our mortality rates are good and
> our outcomes are the best in totality. The problem is paying for the
> results with patients who have no coverage.
You're repeating the same falsehoods from above and other threads which
have been disproven and completely ignoring the even more serious issue
of availability and affordability.
>> The remainder are paying through the nose for profits and executive
>> bonuses. Many families are paying a third of their earnings for health
>> insurance!
>
> A highly regulated industry on both the state and federal level. And
> it's another red herring like tort reform. If you eliminated all health
> insurance profits, it would lower the total cost of healthcare in the US
> by roughly 1%.
Show your figures. I do not believe that unsubstantiated claim.
> People also make the false assumption that eliminating insurance
> companies eliminates overhead. Just look at the giant bureaucracies all
> countries with a single-payer system have. Then consider that in the US,
> government employees are compensated at a far higher level than private
> sector employees.
Straw man, go sell it elsewhere.
>> Only major alterations in the health care system will suffice at this
>> late date. Maintaining the status quo only rewards the pirates.
>>
>>
> Then why does the bill collect tax for five years before additional
> benefits kick in?
To appease Republicans.
> If we can wait five years for reform, we can spend a
> few more months coming up with better solutions.
Tell the doctor that when your insurance is canceled for a major illness.
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in
> news:Et2dnUec_YPqL6vW...@giganews.com:
> the studies would be appreciated.
>
>>
>> Pre and post natal care have been mentioned in this thread and that's
>> a great example. It's an area with real bang for the buck and you
>> actually end up with multiple bangs when you tally the score. There
>> isn't a single study that says otherwise. It's a self licking ice
>> cream cone.
>
> problem already including March of Dimes, Planned Parenthood, WIC,
> PCAP, Medicaid, etc.
That "myriad" is one of the problems.
>
> If we can't get the problemed individuals to take advantage of these
> programs, how will anything in this proposed reform change that?
Homogenious delivery.
>
>>
>>> It's better to to tackle
>>> one issue at a time, implement a fix, measure, repeat as needed,
>>> then move on to the next issue. Otherwise things will spin quickly
>>> out of control.
>>
>> Tell that to the guy currently running Ford Motor. He was hired to
>> get busy and turn Ford around in advance of catastrophic problems
>> and he went right to work with a chain saw in one hand and a plan in
>> the other.
>
> Ford is a different problem on a whole different scale. But to take
> your analogy a step further; Ford chose to use free market capitalist
> methods to reform its operations. GM on the other hand chose to go the
> government fix route. Which company is doing better?
You've drawn the wrong conclusion Dan. Either that or you don't realized
what really happened.
When Ford realized they were in trouble and needed serious reorganization,
they brought in a new team.
I give "young" Bill Ford a lot of credit. When I new the guy he was rarely
sober and raising hell in the bars around Cadieux and Mack Avenue. Montego
Bay comes to mind. Traxx, another.
What they then did was raise 60 billion dollars through debt and equity
offerings and invest it in the restructuring of Ford.
They did exactly what you advise your prospective customers to do. Toss
their old Davenports and get into the game with a new Tsugami.
It's a shame that the Republican's in the House and Senate don't have the
sort of character or integrity that emerged in Bill Ford.
The quality of what ends up becoming the law is what is suffering, and the
American people will pay a price for that.
These fringe Democrats that are exacting their ton of flesh wouldn't get the
time of day were there ten or so Republican's around willing to actually get
their ideas into the bill. They certainly could do that you know.
This bill is a real stinker Dan. There is a bunch of good stuff in it but it
could easily have been much better.
The Democratic Party leadership said they were going to get this done. They
have even gone ahead and changed the Senate's rules to make sure it will.
You, and everyone else, better wrap your heads around that fact, stop
bitching and do something to improve what we end up with because we are sure
as hell going to end up with something.
--
John R. Carroll
Strabo
> done to get people to wake up?
> How do we keep them out of ERs? More preventative care, and education?
>
Poor, poor long-suffering, guilt-ridden do-gooders.
Once the checks stop and the grocery shelves are empty, it'll
fix itself.
You do have guns, gold, food and water, don't you?
Ed Huntress
> be
> done to get people to wake up?
> How do we keep them out of ERs? More preventative care, and education?
Universal health care, with lots of clinics offering common family-practice
services, easily accessible, which encourage early diagnosis and
interventions. Then you have less need for heroics in the ER and on the
operating table.
That's one of the basic purposes of universal coverage.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:rd3_m.121309$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
"Hey, guys, Strabo has guns, gold, food, and water! You guys flank, you
others circle to the rear, and the rest take cover and fire when I give the
word!" <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Lib Loo
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b38dd8c$0$22519$607e...@cv.net...
LOL, you'll look good with a third eye.
Ed Huntress
"Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
news:hhaqbv$bob$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Strabo would be dead before he could take the safety off. One man alone
against a starving and mostly armed population would have a short life
expectancy.
We have roughly a gun for every man, woman, and child in the US. How many
gold-hoarding survivalists do you think there are?
--
Ed Huntress
>
Lib Loo
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b38ed83$0$31259$607e...@cv.net...
He wouldn't have to shoot all of them. Since you would be their leader
giving the orders, he would simply need to take you out first. The rest
would then go take your stuff out of your house, and claim your women.
Strabo
How many? That doesn't matter. Look closely at those strangers you pass
each day. Count them, cause you'll never know who is and who isn't.