NHS To Start Charging Patients?
David Loewe, Jr.
"Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's National
Health Service as much as 23 million pounds, according to a report on
Thursday which recommends drunks be charged a hospital admission fee of
532 pounds � that's about $845.
"Alcohol misuse in Britain is at a level where it constitutes a public
health epidemic," said the report by the right-leaning Policy Exchange
think-tank.
Direct costs to the state-funded NHS, which provides free health care
for Britons, are nearly 3 billion a year, with hospital admissions for
alcohol intoxication doubling in a decade, it added."
--
"I took a shower and I put on my best blue jeans,
I picked her up in my new VW van.
She wore a peasant blouse with nothing underneath,
I said, Hi, and she said, Yeah, I guess I am."
Dean Friedman
Jette Goldie
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641850/ns/health-addictions/
>
> "Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's National
> Health Service as much as 23 million pounds, according to a report on
> Thursday which recommends drunks be charged a hospital admission fee of
>
> "Alcohol misuse in Britain is at a level where it constitutes a public
> health epidemic," said the report by the right-leaning Policy Exchange
> think-tank.
>
> Direct costs to the state-funded NHS, which provides free health care
> for Britons, are nearly 3 billion a year, with hospital admissions for
> alcohol intoxication doubling in a decade, it added."
Please note that this is a <ahem> "think tank" report - not any kind
of official suggestion, proposal, parliamentary bill, etc.
It's got even less official status than the report "Scottish Doctors
back minimum alcohol prices"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8276334.stm
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Robert Sneddon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641850/ns/health-addictions/
>
>"Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's National
>Health Service as much as 23 million pounds, according to a report on
>Thursday which recommends drunks be charged a hospital admission fee of
>532 pounds — that's about $845.
Not going to happen. The NHS is free at point of use and is paid for by
taxation based on earnings and income. Case closed.
>
>"Alcohol misuse in Britain is at a level where it constitutes a public
>health epidemic," said the report by the right-leaning Policy Exchange
>think-tank.
The Policy Exchange is a right-wing "wanktank" (tm Alex Tolley). Its
main thrust is against a perceived Islamic threat to Britain and Europe
with dire warnings about the creeping hordes of darkies and Pakies
coming over here and subverting the white Anglican British way of life.
Another of its goals is to turn the NHS into a profit-making insurance
scam similar to the current American system. It has about as much
influence with the British political system as the John Birch Society
does in the US and has as much chance of getting its recommendations
accepted in polite society as the White Citizens Councils do.
It got caught out a couple of years ago fabricating evidence that
British mosques were rife with mad bombers and violent fundamentalists.
It threatened to sue everyone in sight over the allegations of making
shit up and then claimed all of its field investigators who provided the
evidence for the report were off in Mauritania and unavailable for
interview. They got some flashy headlines in the right-wing press out of
the initial report though -- the retractions were much more subdued when
they came at all.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Keith F. Lynch
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641850/ns/health-addictions/
>> "Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's
>> National Health Service as much as 23 million pounds, according to
>> a report on Thursday which recommends drunks be charged a hospital
>> admission fee of 532 pounds \342\200\224 that's about $845.
> Not going to happen. The NHS is free at point of use and is paid
> for by taxation based on earnings and income. Case closed.
Is it really fair to burden taxpayers with the cost of *self-induced*
illness or injury?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641850/ns/health-addictions/
>
>>> "Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's
>>> National Health Service as much as 23 million pounds, according to
>>> a report on Thursday which recommends drunks be charged a hospital
>>> admission fee of 532 pounds \342\200\224 that's about $845.
>
>> Not going to happen. The NHS is free at point of use and is paid
>> for by taxation based on earnings and income. Case closed.
>
>Is it really fair to burden taxpayers with the cost of *self-induced*
>illness or injury?
Who defines *self-induced*, and how?
We can argue this into the next decade, at least :-)
And if that's the case, how much of the NHS's, and ultimately my and
Nojay's, amongst many others, money would end up being spent on
lawyers fees? :-(
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
Robert Sneddon
<al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34641850/ns/health-addictions/
>>
>>>> "Excessive drinking over New Year's Eve could cost Britain's
>>>> National Health Service as much as 23 million pounds,
>>> Not going to happen. The NHS is free at point of use and is paid
>>> for by taxation based on earnings and income. Case closed.
>>
>>Is it really fair to burden taxpayers with the cost of *self-induced*
>>illness or injury?
>And if that's the case, how much of the NHS's, and ultimately my and
>Nojay's, amongst many others, money would end up being spent on
>lawyers fees? :-(
Or the new levels of bureaucracy required to administer this system
since there is no existing office or structure to bill users of NHS
services at point of use.
Meanwhile in the US, someone who has good medical insurance coverage
through his employer is having billing problems and as far as he can
tell he's going to have billing problems for the forseeable future while
he and his family go through a stressful chemotherapy regime after
oncology surgery:
http://jaylake.livejournal.com/2015355.html
Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
insurance fund although it shouldn't be. It takes him an hour to explain
to the insurance company person on the phone what's wrong and how to fix
it for that instance, but there is no way of sorting it permanently so
he will have to do the same thing again two weeks later and two weeks
after that and... this is not going to make his recovery during chemo
any easier.
The NHS doesn't have in-network and out-of-network billing problems
like this because it doesn't bill the user.
Keith F. Lynch
> Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
> every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
> disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
> insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
> insurance fund although it shouldn't be. It takes him an hour to
> explain to the insurance company person on the phone what's wrong
> and how to fix it for that instance, but there is no way of sorting
> it permanently so he will have to do the same thing again two weeks
> later and two weeks after that and... this is not going to make his
> recovery during chemo any easier.
If I were him, I'd send the insurer an invoice for my wasted time.
Robert Sneddon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
>> every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
>> disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
>> insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
>> insurance fund although it shouldn't be.
>
So you want him to burn even more of his time and concentration in
order to start a dispute proceeding with a large insurance company[1]
with hundreds of lawyers on tap while he's trying to hold down a day
job, look after his family, write books and short stories for
publication and at the same time undergo a physically and
psychologically debilitating course of chemotherapy. Right.
Keith, do you ever think before you apply fingers to keyboard?
[1] Said corporation holds his life and well-being in their hands, and
can screw up his treatment at the stroke of a pen or the slip of a
keyboard entry. Annoying them by sending them invoices for time spent
dealing with medical insurance paperwork is not a good idea.
David Loewe, Jr.
Do you have an alternate plan to get the "large insurance company" to
quit wasting his precious time and energy?
--
"I'll leave the anarchists alone since they usually shoot back.
The liberals wring their hands so much that they make easy
moving targets."
- Capt. Pat Carroll, USAF
netcat
dlo...@mindspring.com says...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:14:58 +0000, Robert Sneddon
> <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
> >>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
> >>> every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
> >>> disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
> >>> insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
> >>> insurance fund although it shouldn't be.
> >>
> >>If I were him, I'd send the insurer an invoice for my wasted time.
> >
> > So you want him to burn even more of his time and concentration in
> >order to start a dispute proceeding with a large insurance company[1]
> >with hundreds of lawyers on tap while he's trying to hold down a day
> >job, look after his family, write books and short stories for
> >publication and at the same time undergo a physically and
> >psychologically debilitating course of chemotherapy. Right.
> >
> > Keith, do you ever think before you apply fingers to keyboard?
> >
> > [1] Said corporation holds his life and well-being in their hands, and
> >can screw up his treatment at the stroke of a pen or the slip of a
> >keyboard entry. Annoying them by sending them invoices for time spent
> >dealing with medical insurance paperwork is not a good idea.
>
> Do you have an alternate plan to get the "large insurance company" to
> quit wasting his precious time and energy?
In light of what Robert said, even "do nothing" seems to be a better
plan. If an unintentional bug in their system can cause so much grief, I
don't want to imagine what they'll do to those vict^H^H^H^Hclients who
piss them off.
rgds,
netcat
Robert Sneddon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:14:58 +0000, Robert Sneddon
><fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>>>If I were him, I'd send the insurer an invoice for my wasted time.
>>
>> So you want him to burn even more of his time and concentration in
>>order to start a dispute proceeding with a large insurance company[1]
>
>quit wasting his precious time and energy?
Single-payer healthcare. No arguing with non-medical intermediaries
about who is going to pay for which part of a treatment, no in-network
and out-of-network bureaucratic busywork designed to waste money and
keep people employed shuffling paper unconstructively. Of course single
payer is Socialism so it will never work in the real world (sarcasm, in
case you didn't notice it).
Here and now Jay is in for an American-free-enterprise world of hurt
administratively speaking. There is no institutional memory at the
insurance company so even when he has explained the problem once and had
his claim adjusted he will have to convince a different
front-line-service agent of the same facts two weeks later. There is no
perceived benefit to the insurance company to fix this -- he can't go
somewhere else due to the lockin through his employer's benefit scheme
and his pre-existing condition. Besides it would cost the insurers money
to fix these sorts of screwups which would cut into profits and year-end
bonuses.
Paul Ciszek
In article <ujkWvTBu...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
>every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
>disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
>insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
>insurance fund although it shouldn't be. It takes him an hour to explain
>to the insurance company person on the phone what's wrong and how to fix
>it for that instance, but there is no way of sorting it permanently so
>he will have to do the same thing again two weeks later and two weeks
>after that and... this is not going to make his recovery during chemo
>any easier.
It makes perfect sense when you consider that now that he is a liability,
the insurer wants him to die as soon as possible.
What the Right doesn't get is that we *already have* "death panels".
They're called "insurance companies".
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Basically Jay Lake (the SF author) will be getting oncology consults
>>every two weeks during forthcoming chemotherapy. The bill will get
>>disputed as the office and the consultant don't match up on the
>>insurer's database and it will be charged to his out-of-network
>>insurance fund although it shouldn't be. It takes him an hour to explain
>>to the insurance company person on the phone what's wrong and how to fix
>>it for that instance, but there is no way of sorting it permanently so
>>he will have to do the same thing again two weeks later and two weeks
>>after that and... this is not going to make his recovery during chemo
>>any easier.
>
>It makes perfect sense when you consider that now that he is a liability,
>the insurer wants him to die as soon as possible.
>
>What the Right doesn't get is that we *already have* "death panels".
>They're called "insurance companies".
Once again, you mischaracterize what has been said. Do you have no
memory or are you just lying?
--
"Learn to see in another�s calamity the ills which you
should avoid."
Publius Syrus
Kip Williams
> What the Right doesn't get is that we *already have* "death panels".
> They're called "insurance companies".
But putting them in the hands of people who don't actually profit from
the deaths would be Bad.
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> What the Right doesn't get is that we *already have* "death
>> panels". They're called "insurance companies".
Unless the cost of medical care is somehow greatly reduced, there will
inevitably be death panels, as there isn't enough money in the world
to give every sick person every life-saving treatment.
At least with insurance companies, you get to choose your death panel.
Insurance companies that are especially Kevorkian-like will lose
business to those that aren't.
The selection is indirect when insurance is provided through one's
employer, which is one reason I think that's a bad idea. But at least
you can choose your employer, and you and your fellow employees can
pressure your employer to change insurers. One employee in a even the
largest company has far more of a voice than one inhabitant in the US.
> But putting them in the hands of people who don't actually profit
> from the deaths would be Bad.
Insurance companies don't profit from their clients dying, except
perhaps in the very short term. Once word gets out, their customers
will switch to another company. Or will decide to do without
insurance.
The government, on the other hand, benefits from the death of anyone
whose medical care costs more than they are likely to pay in taxes
over the remainder of their life. And there's nothing anyone can do
about it, except flee the country.
Karl Johanson
news:hi3dup$acb$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> What the Right doesn't get is that we *already have* "death
>>> panels". They're called "insurance companies".
>
> Unless the cost of medical care is somehow greatly reduced, there will
> inevitably be death panels, as there isn't enough money in the world
> to give every sick person every life-saving treatment.
>
> At least with insurance companies, you get to choose your death panel.
> Insurance companies that are especially Kevorkian-like will lose
> business to those that aren't.
How do you know it would work that way? Could be the 'Kevorkian-like' ones
make more profits & thus can afford to run more ads which make their
competition look bad.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> It makes perfect sense when you consider that now that he is a
> liability, the insurer wants him to die as soon as possible.
It makes no sense when you consider that an insurance company that
gets such a reputation will soon be without customers. Of course I
understand that you can't get fire insurance for a burning house. But
if a fire insurance company is in the habit of canceling or weaseling
out of its obligations whenever a house they are insurance does catch
fire, why would anyone ever again bother to get insurance from them?
Keith F. Lynch
> Single-payer healthcare. No arguing with non-medical intermediaries
Indeed. Just a flat yes or no, and if you try to argue with the
latter you'll be politely but firmly shown the door.
I will concede that nobody has ever posted here that they needed
life-saving treatment in the UK but didn't get it. And the only
possible explanation for that lack must be that everyone always
gets all necessary treatments, right?
Keith F. Lynch
> So you want him to burn even more of his time and concentration
> in order to start a dispute proceeding with a large insurance
> company[1] with hundreds of lawyers on tap while he's trying to hold
> down a day job, look after his family, write books and short stories
> for publication and at the same time undergo a physically and
> psychologically debilitating course of chemotherapy.
Yes. It doesn't take much effort to send a couple of invoices. If
the company balks, escalate. Or sell the debt to a collection agency.
Also get local media involved. Insurance companies don't like bad
publicity.
Those hundreds of lawyers are busy with other things. And their time
costs far more than paying the invoices.
> [1] Said corporation holds his life and well-being in their hands,
> and can screw up his treatment at the stroke of a pen or the slip of
> a keyboard entry. Annoying them by sending them invoices for time
> spent dealing with medical insurance paperwork is not a good idea.
I strongly doubt large insurance companies hold grudges.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> At least with insurance companies, you get to choose your death
>> panel. Insurance companies that are especially Kevorkian-like will
>> lose business to those that aren't.
> How do you know it would work that way? Could be the 'Kevorkian-
> like' ones make more profits & thus can afford to run more ads which
> make their competition look bad.
You can make the same argument about any company. The local grocery
store could make a large profit by selling rotten food, and could
use that profit to run ads praising themselves and criticizing their
competitors. This might work if customers have no memory and if they
never communicate with other customers or potential future customers.
That's a big "if."
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Single-payer healthcare. No arguing with non-medical intermediaries
>> about who is going to pay for which part of a treatment, ...
>
>Indeed. Just a flat yes or no, and if you try to argue with the
>latter you'll be politely but firmly shown the door.
>
>I will concede that nobody has ever posted here that they needed
>life-saving treatment in the UK but didn't get it. And the only
>possible explanation for that lack must be that everyone always
>gets all necessary treatments, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
This next one is, apparently, no longer applicable, but it was at one
time.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4474425.ece
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> At least with insurance companies, you get to choose your death
>>> panel. Insurance companies that are especially Kevorkian-like will
>>> lose business to those that aren't.
>
>> How do you know it would work that way? Could be the 'Kevorkian-
>> like' ones make more profits & thus can afford to run more ads which
>> make their competition look bad.
>
> You can make the same argument about any company.
Yes.
>The local grocery
> store could make a large profit by selling rotten food, and could
> use that profit to run ads praising themselves and criticizing their
> competitors. This might work if customers have no memory and if they
> never communicate with other customers or potential future customers.
> That's a big "if."
Again, budgets for advertising are powerful tools. If your logging company
replants after cutting & mine doesn't, I have more profits to advertise how
we're more environmentally sensitive than you (complete with a film of the
one time your company accidentally killed a baby deer), a substantial number
of people with think I have the more environmentally friendly company.
Homeopaths have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to advertise how
great their shaken water is and how horrible 'allopathic medicine' is. It
works on enough people to keep the megabucks rolling in.
I'm not against capital enterprise. My wife & I own the company which
publishes the magazine I edit. I used to be president of a sign factory.
Etc. I just realize that market forces don't always make things optimal.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> Homeopaths have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars
> to advertise how great their shaken water is and how horrible
> 'allopathic medicine' is. It works on enough people to keep
> the megabucks rolling in.
Megabucks, sure. But the *terabucks* go to "allopathic medicine."
Why? Because, unlike homeopathic medicine, it works. There are
idiots, but most people aren't idiots.
> I just realize that market forces don't always make things optimal.
Nobody has claimed otherwise. It's just better than the alternative
of having the government run things. If a company does bad things,
customers can go elsewhere, then the company will either shape up or
go out of business. If a government does bad things, we're stuck
with it.
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >The local grocery
> > store could make a large profit by selling rotten food, and could
> > use that profit to run ads praising themselves and criticizing their
> > competitors. This might work if customers have no memory and if they
> > never communicate with other customers or potential future customers.
> > That's a big "if."
>
> Again, budgets for advertising are powerful tools. If your logging company
> replants after cutting & mine doesn't, I have more profits to advertise how
> we're more environmentally sensitive than you (complete with a film of the
> one time your company accidentally killed a baby deer), a substantial number
> of people with think I have the more environmentally friendly company
It's worth noting the distinction between persuading someone of
something where his belief has no effect on him--as in your example--and
persuading someone of something where the costs of the wrong decision
are born by him.
I am reminded of an argument I overheard a very long time ago between my
father and the proprietor of the service station he used to work on his
car. The proprietor was making Karl's argument. The particular product
they were discussing was a new car Ford had just brought out and heavily
advertised. It was called the Edsel.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Homeopaths have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars
> > to advertise how great their shaken water is and how horrible
> > 'allopathic medicine' is. It works on enough people to keep
> > the megabucks rolling in.
>
> Megabucks, sure. But the *terabucks* go to "allopathic medicine."
> Why? Because, unlike homeopathic medicine, it works. There are
> idiots, but most people aren't idiots.
To make the point in a different form, note that a megabuck, which
sounds like a lot of money, corresponds to about one penny each from
every family in the U.S.
Karl Johanson
news:hi3k2t$pdq$8...@reader1.panix.com...
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Homeopaths have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars
>> to advertise how great their shaken water is and how horrible
>> 'allopathic medicine' is. It works on enough people to keep
>> the megabucks rolling in.
>
> Megabucks, sure. But the *terabucks* go to "allopathic medicine."
> Why? Because, unlike homeopathic medicine, it works. There are
> idiots, but most people aren't idiots.
>> I just realize that market forces don't always make things optimal.
>
> Nobody has claimed otherwise.
You said, "Insurance companies don't profit from their clients dying, except
perhaps in the very short term. Once word gets out, their customers
will switch to another company. Or will decide to do without
insurance."
I pointed out that that isn't necessarily so & explained why.
Lee Ratner
> Robert Sneddon <f...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Single-payer healthcare. No arguing with non-medical intermediaries
> > about who is going to pay for which part of a treatment, ...
>
> Indeed. Just a flat yes or no, and if you try to argue with the
> latter you'll be politely but firmly shown the door.
>
In every single country with single-payer healthcare, happiness with
the system has been consistently high across the political specturm
and with doctor and patients. This is because single-payer healthcare
works. You might be too blinded by your hatred of anything
governmental to realize this but it works. Meanwhile, the American
healthcare system is inflicted all sorts of suffering on we Americans
and it still has its defenders. How much evidence is necessary to show
that Medicare for all is really the best solution to our healthcare
problems? I suspect the answer for those opposed to single-payer
healthcare is that no amount of evidence will convince them and only
"free market" solutions would work. Its a shame because they are
dragging us down.
Lee Ratner
disagreed with him on one very important issue. In Capitalism: A Love
Story, Moore depicts many American's unbending faith in free market
extremism as a result for Post-WWII corporate propaganda. The roots
I'm afraid are much deeper. To many Americans, America has been about
earning gobs of money ever since the Dutch purchased Manhattan and
Jamestown was established in Virginia. Luckily, the Puritans and
Quakers settled America for more utopian reasons and provide a
progressive counter ideology to the Dutch and Virginians.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Whither Protestant Work Ethic?
--
"1a) Never throw shit at an armed man.
1b) Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at
an armed man."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
David Friedman
<7a4ac63f-a7b9-43f5...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith, you have absolutetly no evidence to back your position.
> In every single country with single-payer healthcare, happiness with
> the system has been consistently high across the political specturm
> and with doctor and patients.
Critics of the U.S. system like to quote the WHO report comparing health
systems across the world. One of its categories was "responsiveness"
which, if you check the notes to the study, was a measure of how good
people in each country thought their health system was.
That was the category in which the U.S. ranked number one.
The discussion on my blog has links to the study itself and to the notes:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/09/international-health-care-comp
arisons.html
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Colette Reap
>In article
><7a4ac63f-a7b9-43f5...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keith, you have absolutetly no evidence to back your position.
>> In every single country with single-payer healthcare, happiness with
>> the system has been consistently high across the political specturm
>> and with doctor and patients.
>
>Critics of the U.S. system like to quote the WHO report comparing health
>systems across the world. One of its categories was "responsiveness"
>which, if you check the notes to the study, was a measure of how good
>people in each country thought their health system was.
>
>That was the category in which the U.S. ranked number one.
But as you say at the end of your piece 'My conclusion is that the
numbers produced by the report are very nearly useless for purposes
other than propaganda, since they do not provide much information on
how good the health care systems of different countries are at
delivering health care.'
Which presumably means that you consider that the US ranking for
responsiveness is also very nearly useless for purposes other than
propaganda, which rather begs the question of why you mentioned in the
first place.
--
Colette
Keith F. Lynch
> How much evidence is necessary to show that Medicare for all is
> really the best solution to our healthcare problems?
Then why has nobody in power suggested any such thing? Instead of
changing everything overnight, they could have reduced the age of
eligibility for Medicare by one year per year, and backed off only
if problems ensued. Why didn't they do that?
Perhaps it's because problems have *already* ensued? Medicare is a
disaster area. It has been for decades.
> I suspect the answer for those opposed to single-payer healthcare is
> that no amount of evidence will convince them and only "free market"
> solutions would work. Its a shame because they are dragging us down.
As hard as it may be for you to believe, some people prefer freedom.
I for one would withdraw all my objections if the new system was made
*voluntary*. Anyone would be free to opt out, paying nothing into the
system and gaining no benefits from the system. Why isn't this even
being considered? It seems that the number one priority is that the
new system be coercive, as if the main goal wasn't improved health but
decreased freedom.
Keith F. Lynch
> To make the point in a different form, note that a megabuck, which
> sounds like a lot of money,
Despite inflation, it's still enough to comfortably retire on.
> corresponds to about one penny each from every family in the U.S.
Indeed. Million, billion, and trillion sound similar. But when
divided by the population of the US, the difference becomes clear:
One million dollars = one cent per family
One billion dollars = $10 per family
One trillion dollars = $10,000 per family
So three billion dollars for the Cassini probe to saturn is $30 per
family. Ten million dollars to perfect cryonics so that nobody need
ever permanently die is ten cents per family. Three trillion dollars
for Obamacare is $30,000 per family. Quite a difference.
David Friedman
Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><7a4ac63f-a7b9-43f5...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keith, you have absolutetly no evidence to back your position.
> >> In every single country with single-payer healthcare, happiness with
> >> the system has been consistently high across the political specturm
> >> and with doctor and patients.
> >
> >Critics of the U.S. system like to quote the WHO report comparing health
> >systems across the world. One of its categories was "responsiveness"
> >which, if you check the notes to the study, was a measure of how good
> >people in each country thought their health system was.
> >
> >That was the category in which the U.S. ranked number one.
>
> But as you say at the end of your piece 'My conclusion is that the
> numbers produced by the report are very nearly useless for purposes
> other than propaganda, since they do not provide much information on
> how good the health care systems of different countries are at
> delivering health care.'
Correct.
> Which presumably means that you consider that the US ranking for
> responsiveness is also very nearly useless for purposes other than
> propaganda, which rather begs the question of why you mentioned in the
> first place.
It's evidence, not of how good the U.S. system is, but of how good
Americans think it is. Hence it corresponds directly to Lee's claim,
which was not about how good single-payer systems are but about how
happy people are with them.
If Lee's original point was relevant (putting aside the question of
whether it was true, which I don't know), then so was mine.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> To make the point in a different form, note that a megabuck, which
>> sounds like a lot of money,
>
>Despite inflation, it's still enough to comfortably retire on.
Well, *that* depends on a wide variety of factors.
Given my pre-existing medical condition and the current low interest
rates, if I were to survive any significant length of time, it would not
be enough.
>> corresponds to about one penny each from every family in the U.S.
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
Kip Williams
> So three billion dollars for the Cassini probe to saturn is $30 per
> family. Ten million dollars to perfect cryonics so that nobody need
> ever permanently die is ten cents per family.
Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected. Makes you
wonder why some billionaire hasn't already done it, doesn't it?
Kip W
netcat
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > To make the point in a different form, note that a megabuck, which
> > sounds like a lot of money,
>
> Despite inflation, it's still enough to comfortably retire on.
>
> > corresponds to about one penny each from every family in the U.S.
>
> Indeed. Million, billion, and trillion sound similar. But when
> divided by the population of the US, the difference becomes clear:
>
> One million dollars = one cent per family
> One billion dollars = $10 per family
> One trillion dollars = $10,000 per family
>
> So three billion dollars for the Cassini probe to saturn is $30 per
> family. Ten million dollars to perfect cryonics so that nobody need
> ever permanently die is ten cents per family.
What makes you think it can be done with ten million?
rgds,
netcat
Colette Reap
Keith F. Lynch
> k...@KeithLynch.net says...
>> So three billion dollars for the Cassini probe to saturn is $30 per
>> family. Ten million dollars to perfect cryonics so that nobody
>> need ever permanently die is ten cents per family.
And the $12.2 trillion US federal debt is about $122,000 per family --
and increasing by $14,000 per year. In other words, we're doomed.
And that's *without* Obamacare, which would greatly increase both
numbers.
> What makes you think it can be done with ten million?
Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
Keith F. Lynch
So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing damage
is pretty well understood, as are several promising approaches for
preventing it.
> Makes you wonder why some billionaire hasn't already done it,
> doesn't it?
Indeed it does. Maybe they're not aware of the option.
Karl Johanson
news:hianf3$q4j$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>> k...@KeithLynch.net says...
>>> So three billion dollars for the Cassini probe to saturn is $30 per
>>> family. Ten million dollars to perfect cryonics so that nobody
>>> need ever permanently die is ten cents per family.
>
> And the $12.2 trillion US federal debt is about $122,000 per family --
> and increasing by $14,000 per year. In other words, we're doomed.
>
> And that's *without* Obamacare, which would greatly increase both
> numbers.
http://n1.cdn.spikedhumor.com/1/755000/197727_the_end_of_the_world_as_we_know_it_1.jpg
>> What makes you think it can be done with ten million?
>
> Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
> cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
If they don't know how to do it yet, how do they know how much it will cost
to do it?
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
>> cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
> If they don't know how to do it yet, how do they know how much it
> will cost to do it?
Good question. You'd have to ask them. But I'll point out that
research often works this way. Especially with well-understood
problem domains.
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
>>> cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
>
>> If they don't know how to do it yet, how do they know how much it
>> will cost to do it?
>
> Good question. You'd have to ask them.
Who's them?
>But I'll point out that
> research often works this way. Especially with well-understood
> problem domains.
Karl Johanson
Jay E. Morris
On 9-Jan-2010, "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote
> > Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
> >>> cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
> >
> >> If they don't know how to do it yet, how do they know how much it
> >> will cost to do it?
> >
> > Good question. You'd have to ask them.
>
> Who's them?
You know. Them. Over there.
Karl Johanson
news:hib9v0$h0p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Those giant terrifying, horrifying exciting, mysterious giant ants?
Karl Johanson
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected.
>
> So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing damage
> is pretty well understood, as are several promising approaches for
> preventing it.
Sounds too good to be true!
Kip W
Andy Leighton
>> Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected.
>
> So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing damage
> is pretty well understood, as are several promising approaches for
> preventing it.
Presumably these will be the cryonicists who want you to give them
10 million to perfect the process.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected.
>
> So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing
> damage is pretty well understood, as are several promising
> approaches for preventing it.
"Perfected cryonics is just ten million dollars away, and always
will be."
-- wds
Jay E. Morris
On 9-Jan-2010, "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote in message
> news:hib9v0$h0p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> > On 9-Jan-2010, "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote
> >> > Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> >>> Several prominent cryonicists have independently concluded that
> >> >>> cryonics can be perfected for ten million dollars in ten years.
> >> >
> >> >> If they don't know how to do it yet, how do they know how much it
> >> >> will cost to do it?
> >> >
> >> > Good question. You'd have to ask them.
> >>
> >> Who's them?
> >
> > You know. Them. Over there.
>
> Those giant terrifying, horrifying exciting, mysterious giant ants?
You know my aunts?
Keith F. Lynch
Some things that sound too good to be true *are* true. Smallpox is
extinct in the wild. The USSR is gone, without anyone fighting WWIII.
Something that costs nothing and has no bad side effects (quitting
smoking) has greater health benefits than the all medical treatments
put together, including the most expensive, painful, disabling, and
risky ones. The net. Google. Wikipedia. Inexpensive multi-gigabyte
thumb drives with no moving parts that fit on a keychain.
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected.
>
>>> So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing damage
>>> is pretty well understood, as are several promising approaches for
>>> preventing it.
>
>> Sounds too good to be true!
>
> Some things that sound too good to be true *are* true. Smallpox is
> extinct in the wild. The USSR is gone, without anyone fighting WWIII.
> Something that costs nothing and has no bad side effects (quitting
> smoking) has greater health benefits than the all medical treatments
> put together, including the most expensive, painful, disabling, and
> risky ones. The net. Google. Wikipedia. Inexpensive multi-gigabyte
> thumb drives with no moving parts that fit on a keychain.
Yes. They laughed at the Wright Brothers and at perpetual motion. We
probably differ on which this is more similar to.
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just like that: Spend ten mill and cryonics will be perfected.
>
>>> So several knowledgeable cryonicists have claimed. Freezing damage
>>> is pretty well understood, as are several promising approaches for
>>> preventing it.
>
>> Sounds too good to be true!
>
>Some things that sound too good to be true *are* true. Smallpox is
>extinct in the wild. The USSR is gone, without anyone fighting WWIII.
>Something that costs nothing and has no bad side effects (quitting
>smoking) has greater health benefits than the all medical treatments
>put together, including the most expensive, painful, disabling, and
>risky ones. The net. Google. Wikipedia. Inexpensive multi-gigabyte
>thumb drives with no moving parts that fit on a keychain.
Speaking of...
Apropos of an earlier discussion, I have obtained a 4 GB USB thumb
drive. A new (to our city) computer store was opening up and sent out
flyers with coupons for a free 4 GB thumb drive. The coupon
accomplished the intended purpose of getting me (and a buddy as we were
on the way to our fortnightly card game) in the store and I bought some
other items (in my case a keychain with an led light and a 3 pack of air
while in Dave's case, he bought an external enclosure).
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
Keith F. Lynch
Perhaps, and perhaps not. I'm not a cryonics fanatic. I merely
observe that perfected cryonics would not violate any known physical
laws, unlike a perpetual motion machine. And that far more than
ten million dollars is frequently spent on far more dubious schemes,
including ones whose maximum possible benefit is far less.