In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You might want to read that analysis of Steven Brill's taboo shattering
analysis of health care costs and tell us why your impression of health care
is so discordant. It should also be education to Kurt because it explains
how Medicare, a *mostly* single payer systems, has helped forced
skyrocketing medical costs back to earth:
Medicare has on numerous occsassions (DRGs, etc,) brought
medical costs back to earth, for periods of time. But they always pick
back up again soon thereafter. So far nothing has done more than slow
the rise for a period of time and then they take off again. Get back
with me in 2-3 years, especially when the economy picks back up.



Then there's the question of how much of serious medical care *is* emergency
related? I'd say more than enough to make comparison shopping meaningless
because of the expertise and time it takes to get an accurate price quote
*before* services are rendered.

So you set up your own definition of how much and don't bother to
let anyone in on it. Sorta the medical debate version of double secret
probation.



That makes your position even harder to understand except perhaps in terms
of defending a system that's been financial rewarding to you and brings into
question your objectivity.
Guffaw. Someone with some actual experience disagrees with you and
you question his objectivity

Sounds like a textbook case of cognitive
dissonance to me:
Me, too , in your case. The problem is that you probably don't get
the overwhelming irony of this statement coming from your fingers.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein