Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
dpb writes:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

That's what catastrophic policies are for...you don't have one???
And after it gets maxed out, then what?
Call Uncle Barak, I guess. Seems your answer to everything else; ask
somebody else to take care your responsibilities.

In designing critical systems (and I think health care qualifies),
it is important to consider the failure points before they occur.
So I think it was not only a fair question, but an essential one.

Then what? Some *will* be in over their heads. Is there a lifeguard
or do they drown?

Both are acceptable answers (ultimately, all resources have limits),
but avoiding the question definitely doesn't lead to good solutions.

Not according to Lew, apparently.

The problem I see is that the proposed solutions don't actually address
the questions but only provide another unfunded mandate similar to the
several that are already in place that we haven't yet figure out how to
continue to pay for.

I have no problem w/ the idea of somehow making alterations; I simply
would like to see the actuarial bases behind the changes a priori as
well as how various things such as the electronic records that is being
touted as a cost-savings tool (of apparently almost unlimited benefit to
hear it sold) is actually going to defray which specific costs to offset
the implementation, operation and continuing maintenance costs.

I've heard much rhetoric; little what I would classify as solid information.

--