"bob haller" wrote in message
news:d00ca37e-a2a3-4c0d-a731-

stuff snipped

Every single american should of been rolled into medicare for
catarosphic coverage items.

Exactly!

private insurance could of continued for everything else

That solution is still quite possible.

This would of been a reasonable solution

But it wouldn't be allowed by the health care industry lobbyists who were
kind enough to write the bill for us. Do you think they really put
themselves into a barrel in 2700 pages? I think they've probably put in
more escape clauses than Carter's got little liver pills. That tends to
happen when industry lobbyists write legislation affecting themselves.

--
Bobby G.

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.

I didn't say anything insulting to you did I?
Nah. Over shot the response, sorry. Maybe I picked the wrong day to
give up coffee (g).

I think the assertion is that routine medical care will save costs over
waiting for a full blown emergency. I didn't run the numbers on this
myself, but I think the assertion is plausible.

Plausible but not likely in real life. The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation put together a white paper on the subject
(http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/0...preventivecare
.brief.pdf). They found Preventive services can reduce the prevalence of
a targeted disease or condition and help people live longer, healthier
lives. Most preventive care does not result in cost savings, however,
because costs to reduce risk factors, screening costs, and the cost of
treatment when disease is found can offset any savings from preventive
care. Additionally, living longer means people may develop other
ailments that increase lifetime health care costs.

Thank you.

So much nicer to exchange information rather than insults.


--
Dan Espen

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

So much nicer to exchange information rather than insults.

Everybody has an off day occassionally. Feel free to call me on it the
next time (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 02/23/12 06:07 pm, chaniarts wrote:

An accurate count of regulations means that
every federal regulation reduces the total number
of regulations in the country by a factor of 50.

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.


Have you considered that hospitals are FORCED to
supply care whether you have insurance or not?
Just for a very small number of instances (active labor and
life-threatening circumstances. They are also free to kick your ass out
the door the minute the kid is launched and/or you are stable (at least
legally).

not in my state. they have to take everyone and treat everything (from
colds to amputations) without asking any citizenship type of questions.

bad things happen if they break any of these rules.

Yes, they have to treat everybody, but they still send the bills. A few
months back while we were on vacation in another state and our son had
not yet received his new insurance card, he had to go to the ER. Because
he did not yet have his new card and it was a Saturday, when they could
not talk to anybody at the insurance co., they classed him as being
responsible for the costs. If it were not for the deluge of bills (from
the physician, from the facility, from the radiographer, from the this,
from the that, and from the other), the Postal Service would be in even
worse trouble -- and then we had to keep forwarding these bills (one by
one as we received them) to the insurance company: more business for USPS.

Perce

Yes, they have to treat everybody, but they still send the bills.

Agreed. What part of that do people not get? I'm so sick of the insured
complaining that they are "paying" for my healthcare because I'm uninsured.
I simply DO NOT GET HEALTHCARE. I can't afford it. Sure, if I were having a
heart attack the hospital would treat me and then send me an astronomical
bill, and I would have to pay it. If you're illegal or don't own anything
you can just ignore the bill and no problem. If you're an uninsured,
tax-paying, working person, then you have to pay or risk losing everything
you own. That's why the uninsured simply don't seek medical treatment. I'd
rather be dead than homeless.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

Additionally, living longer means people may develop other
ailments that increase lifetime health care costs.

Ouch! That's a reason to return to Sparta and throwing sickly babies in the
river to drown. The longer people live, the more of everything they're
likely to consume, including health care. You've created a new way for
insurers to deny treatment. "You're just going to get something else down
the line so we won't pay for your insulin."

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

Additionally, living longer means people may develop other
ailments that increase lifetime health care costs.

Ouch! That's a reason to return to Sparta and throwing sickly babies in the
river to drown. The longer people live, the more of everything they're
likely to consume, including health care. You've created a new way for
insurers to deny treatment. "You're just going to get something else down
the line so we won't pay for your insulin."

To quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 2/24/2012 6:09 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


not in my state. they have to take everyone and treat everything (from
colds to amputations) without asking any citizenship type of questions.

bad things happen if they break any of these rules.
Which state? Also we were discussing asking payment questions and not
citizenship questions.


az. they do send the bills. usually to the 3rd packing crate on XYZ
street. they don't usually get paid.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:PomdnbbBv-

stuff snipped

Look at the MA experience. The state's own figures show that many
people are not buying the policies until they are needed and then
pulling back out when not.. until needed again.

That's a perfect reason for mandating coverage and fining those who like to
game the system by waiting until the last second to buy coverage. They need
to be fined MORE than what they would pay in premiums to make the penalty
meaningful. The system works best when everyone has a stake in it, not just
buying into it at the last minute when they feel ill. There are plenty of
ways to work around them, but they're unpalatable to some people -- people
who oddly enough appear to have no qualms about paying auto insurance under
threat of criminal prosecution if they drive without it.

The leading cause of US personal bankruptcies are medical expenses. Many of
those filing had what they thought was good medical insurance. They were
wrong.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...064_666715.htm

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S.
in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that
surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at
the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not
Medicare or Medicaid . . .
Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college.

.. . . Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments, and
deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author
Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious
illness away from bankruptcy."

"One serious illness away from bankruptcy." I wonder how many of those who
got sick lost their coverage due to "rescissions" - the dirty little secret
of the health insurance industry which basically means "we'll gladly take
your premium money - sometimes for ten years - until you make a claim, and
then we'll scour it for the tiniest error, real or imagined, on which we can
rescind your policy."

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/...-check-and-be/

Rescission cases have drawn increased scrutiny from state health
regulators who have levied million-dollar fines against insurers. Courts had
recently begun siding with patients who filled out their applications in
good faith and paid their premiums for years, only to be dumped when they
needed insurance most . . . This issue has also drawn the attention of
Congress, where witnesses testified that state protections against the
practice are often weak and insufficient. Witnesses asked the federal
government to step in to fill the breach. The healthcare reform bills
proposed in Congress would end this practice of rescission.

The lessons of history are plain: act like an a$$hole and get your industry
regulated by popular demand. The banks earned their recent regulatory
assault the same way most industries have - the old fashioned way. They had
to suck it down recently and when BOA and Verizon tried to tack on new fees
to "punish" Americans for daring to regulate them they lost millions in
deposits and their place in the bank rankings. Americans pushed back and
said no. They're saying 'no' to the big health insurers, too.

The subjects of such regulations of course hate them and fight tooth and
claw against them but in the long run they're getting not only what they
deserved, but what they quite literally begged for with their bad behavior.
Employers like Wal-Mart are forcing universal care by telling their workers
to go on Medicaid and have once again cut back health care benefits for
employees. They, too are begging for regulation.

Until those "bankruptcy for health debts" numbers plunge drastically for
*insured* Americans, it will be hard to convince me that our current system
is A-OK and doesn't need any fixing. It's badly broken and it's breaking
down further each day.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" writes:
"One serious illness away from bankruptcy."

I hope we hear this over and over again during
the campaign.

Even the very rich should be worried.
A million or 2 isn't enough for lots of things
that can happen to you. That's why insurance companies
used to have life time limits of 1 or 2 million.

--
Dan Espen

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:17:53 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:PomdnbbBv-

stuff snipped

Look at the MA experience. The state's own figures show that many
people are not buying the policies until they are needed and then
pulling back out when not.. until needed again.

That's a perfect reason for mandating coverage and fining those who like to
game the system by waiting until the last second to buy coverage. They need
to be fined MORE than what they would pay in premiums to make the penalty
meaningful.

You are one twisted son-of-a-bitch! Your "perfect reason" is a text
book example of socialism.

On 02/24/12 06:17 pm, Robert Green wrote:

Look at the MA experience. The state's own figures show that many
people are not buying the policies until they are needed and then
pulling back out when not.. until needed again.

That's a perfect reason for mandating coverage and fining those who like to
game the system by waiting until the last second to buy coverage. They need
to be fined MORE than what they would pay in premiums to make the penalty
meaningful.
snip

Better still, have a govt-run insurance scheme in which people will be
enrolled automatically (and billed for as a surcharge on their tax, or
by some other means) unless they demonstrate that they have some other
coverage that is at least as good.

Perce

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:17:53 -0500, "Robert Green"

That's a perfect reason for mandating coverage and fining those who like to
game the system by waiting until the last second to buy coverage. They
need
to be fined MORE than what they would pay in premiums to make the penalty
meaningful.

You are one twisted son-of-a-bitch! Your "perfect reason" is a text
book example of socialism.

You socialist, also? Sounds it.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

Better still, have a govt-run insurance scheme in which people will be
enrolled automatically (and billed for as a surcharge on their tax, or
by some other means) unless they demonstrate that they have some other
coverage that is at least as good.

Perce

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:27:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

It sure took you a while. All you have to know is that he's a Vermin.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:00:22 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:27:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

It sure took you a while. All you have to know is that he's a Vermin.

You're absolutely right. I was trying to be polite but his remark
made me lose it.

On 2/25/2012 12:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:27:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

It sure took you a while. All you have to know is that he's a Vermin.

I think Bobby is or was a journalist or reporter of some sort. Don't
hold it against him, there is a lot of entertainment value in his posts
and what he believes. I love his stereotypes and misconceptions about
my own region of the country. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:45:29 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/25/2012 12:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:27:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

It sure took you a while. All you have to know is that he's a Vermin.

I think Bobby is or was a journalist or reporter of some sort.

A Vermin journalist? That explains it all!

Don't
hold it against him, there is a lot of entertainment value in his posts
and what he believes. I love his stereotypes and misconceptions about
my own region of the country. ^_^

There's a lot of that in the snotty Northeast.

On 2/25/2012 10:01 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:45:29 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/25/2012 12:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:27:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've sensed, for a while, that R Green is socialist.

It sure took you a while. All you have to know is that he's a Vermin.

I think Bobby is or was a journalist or reporter of some sort.

A Vermin journalist? That explains it all!

Don't
hold it against him, there is a lot of entertainment value in his posts
and what he believes. I love his stereotypes and misconceptions about
my own region of the country. ^_^

There's a lot of that in the snotty Northeast.

Heck, I adore my Liberal friends, they're very entertaining. One of my
grownup girlfriends is a devout Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton
because he was pretty. ^_^

TDD

If being much too conservative a Christian to revere Adam Smith as a
prophet and his "free market capitalism" as divine revelation make me a
socialist, then I wear the badge proudly.

Perce


On 02/24/12 11:27 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

You socialist, also? Sounds it.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Percival P. wrote in message
...

Better still, have a govt-run insurance scheme in which people will be
enrolled automatically (and billed for as a surcharge on their tax, or
by some other means) unless they demonstrate that they have some other
coverage that is at least as good.

Perce

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message "Robert Green"
wrote:

stuff snipped

Additionally, living longer means people may develop other
ailments that increase lifetime health care costs.

Ouch! That's a reason to return to Sparta and throwing sickly babies in
the
river to drown. The longer people live, the more of everything they're
likely to consume, including health care. You've created a new way for
insurers to deny treatment. "You're just going to get something else
down
the line so we won't pay for your insulin."

To quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again".

It's called "hyperbole" - ask Master Hyperbolist HeyBub. (-: He'll
explain.

The point is that if cost is the only metric in health care that's
considered important, then extending *anyone's* life is pointless because it
means that they're only going to consume even more health care dollars down
the road. You, better than most here, should know the complexity of the
health care equations.

What has to happen is knowing *when* extending someone's life is a hideously
wasteful exercise, as in our country's tendency to perform expense, risky
surgery on very ill, elderly people who are clearly about to die from some
other cause. We've sort of locked ourselves into believing that by spending
enough money, Americans can live forever. That's one of the reasons why our
health care costs are almost double that of other countries that have
similiar public health problems and similiar longevities.

I've read that elderly Americans, unlike residents of many other countries,
are more likely to die in the hospital getting punched in the chest
(hyperbole alert) while hooked up defibrillator paddles and loaded up with
drugs. In other countries they die in hospices or even at home with their
families when death is inevitable. I'm watching my poor cousin extend her
life by a few months by some pretty horrific methods. Have you heard of "ho
t chemo?" Satan himself could not have designed a more horrific "medical"
treatment.

--
Bobby G.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" writes:
"One serious illness away from bankruptcy."

I hope we hear this over and over again during
the campaign.

Even the very rich should be worried.
A million or 2 isn't enough for lots of things
that can happen to you. That's why insurance companies
used to have life time limits of 1 or 2 million.

I'm doing my part! (-: Just like so many people who take student loans,
mortgage deductions and Medicare don't believe they are taking government
money, there are plenty of people who believe that those filing for
bankruptcy did so because they failed to plan well or were somehow scamming
the system.

To paraphrase Danny DeVito in the "War of the Roses:" when one of the
richest guys in America, who probably makes thousands of dollars per hour
(minute?) offers some free advice, it probably pays to listen to him. When
Buffet warns that almost everyone is "one serious illness away from
bankruptcy" the numbers are clear that he's telling the unvarnished and very
unpalatable truth. He was similarly truthful about how little the some of
the rich pay in taxes. Like Mitt's 14% average tax rate.

What a lot of people don't realize is that insurers don't have to stall much
more than usual when dealing with a seriously ill patient to turn them into
a terminal one. I've read case after case where the insurers, after weeks
of delay, finally approved a costly procedure that turned out to be too late
to apply to the now-deceased patient. I found that behavior by private
insurers to be where the REAL "death panel" decisions are made. Not the BS
"panels" postulated by people who wanted to kill universal health care and
who deliberately misread the "advisement of options" sections of the new
law. "Misread" or outright lied.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What a lot of people don't realize is that insurers don't have to stall much
more than usual when dealing with a seriously ill patient to turn them into
a terminal one. I've read case after case where the insurers, after weeks
of delay, finally approved a costly procedure that turned out to be too late
to apply to the now-deceased patient. I found that behavior by private
insurers to be where the REAL "death panel" decisions are made. Not the BS
"panels" postulated by people who wanted to kill universal health care and
who deliberately misread the "advisement of options" sections of the new
law. "Misread" or outright lied.

The same has held true for ages with MCare and (especially)
MCaid. They pretty much taught the privates everything they know about
not paying and/or paying late. I have long noted that the death panels
do exist in both types of programs and to pretend either doesn't is just
blowing smoke up my ass from both sides. If anything, the structure of
the ACA will actually increase this, plus (when things are bundled) add
in incentives for docs and hospitals to join the game.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

The same has held true for ages with MCare and (especially)
MCaid. They pretty much taught the privates everything they know about
not paying and/or paying late. I have long noted that the death panels
do exist in both types of programs and to pretend either doesn't is just
blowing smoke up my ass from both sides. If anything, the structure of
the ACA will actually increase this, plus (when things are bundled) add
in incentives for docs and hospitals to join the game.

I don't know who taught whom as far as trying to get out from paying
claims. I just know that denying legit claims adds a lot to the total cost
of healthcare. But then I'm not an expert on discerning false claims,
whether fraudent or just mistaken, like in wrong code assigned.

As far as "death panels" is concerned, this Wall Street article may be use-
or insightful: http://tinyurl.com/86af5d9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...43321242833962.
html?KEYWORDS=end+of+life+doctor

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


As far as "death panels" is concerned, this Wall Street article may be use-
or insightful: http://tinyurl.com/86af5d9
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...43321242833962.
html?KEYWORDS=end+of+life+doctor

Since this deals with personal decisions and not decisions made by
(largely faceless) others, I am not sure how it fits.
Another interesting article popped awhile ago. It shows that
recessions lower health care usage at the same time they show IMPROVED
health care stats. One theory is that a decline in health care use means
a decline in unnecessary care, too, so there are fewer tests that lead
to follow up tests and procedures in people who don¹t actually have a
serious health problemŠ and fewer cases of medical harm.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" writes:

That's 34% of his income that he's
giving up and using to help others.

You're counting the money he gives to the Mormon
Church as "helping others"?

--
Dan Espen

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

" writes:

That's 34% of his income that he's
giving up and using to help others.

You're counting the money he gives to the Mormon
Church as "helping others"?

I would. Having worked a few major disasters over the years, Mormon-run
disaster relief services have been an important part of the response.
Right up there with the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Unlike the
Red Cross, they do all their fundraising in-house so to speak (so they
don't annoy you with breathless missives about the IMMEDIATE NEED FOR
MONEY) and unlike FEMA they actually get there in a timely manner.
As motherjones.com (hardly a bastion of conservative thinking)
noted:
"Before the storm (Katrina) made landfall, the LDS church in New Orleans
safely evacuated all but about seven families out of about 2,500 local
members, largely because the church had created an automated telephone
emergency warning system that alerted all its members, instructing them
to get out of town and telling them where to go.

Two days before the storm made landfall, while FEMA was floundering, the
church dispatched 10 trucks full of tents, sleeping bags, tarps to cover
wrecked roofs, bottled water, and 5-gallon drums of gas from its
warehouses to New Orleans and other hard-hit areas. The supplies were
distributed in an orderly fashion to people who desperately needed them."

Distributed, I might add, without regard to the beliefs of the
recipients.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

" writes:

That's 34% of his income that he's
giving up and using to help others.

You're counting the money he gives to the Mormon
Church as "helping others"?

I would. Having worked a few major disasters over the years, Mormon-run
disaster relief services have been an important part of the response.
Right up there with the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Unlike the
Red Cross, they do all their fundraising in-house so to speak (so they
don't annoy you with breathless missives about the IMMEDIATE NEED FOR
MONEY) and unlike FEMA they actually get there in a timely manner.
As motherjones.com (hardly a bastion of conservative thinking)
noted:
"Before the storm (Katrina) made landfall, the LDS church in New Orleans
safely evacuated all but about seven families out of about 2,500 local
members, largely because the church had created an automated telephone
emergency warning system that alerted all its members, instructing them
to get out of town and telling them where to go.

Two days before the storm made landfall, while FEMA was floundering, the
church dispatched 10 trucks full of tents, sleeping bags, tarps to cover
wrecked roofs, bottled water, and 5-gallon drums of gas from its
warehouses to New Orleans and other hard-hit areas. The supplies were
distributed in an orderly fashion to people who desperately needed them."

Distributed, I might add, without regard to the beliefs of the
recipients.

I have no first hand experience, so:

http://mormonthink.com/tithing.htm

From that I can't tell if 50% of the donated money goes to charity or
1%. It appears that even the average Mormon doesn't know.

Of course, we don't know where all our taxes go either,
and the subject of whether that "helps others" is a quagmire.

--
Dan Espen

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What a lot of people don't realize is that insurers don't have to stall
much
more than usual when dealing with a seriously ill patient to turn them
into
a terminal one. I've read case after case where the insurers, after
weeks
of delay, finally approved a costly procedure that turned out to be too
late
to apply to the now-deceased patient. I found that behavior by private
insurers to be where the REAL "death panel" decisions are made. Not the
BS
"panels" postulated by people who wanted to kill universal health care
and
who deliberately misread the "advisement of options" sections of the new
law. "Misread" or outright lied.

The same has held true for ages with MCare and (especially)
MCaid. They pretty much taught the privates everything they know about
not paying and/or paying late.

Reminds me of the old joke: "He's slower than a postal worker on Valium."
Adding government bureacracy to *any* process isn't like to speed up the
results. (-:

I have long noted that the death panels
do exist in both types of programs and to pretend either doesn't is just
blowing smoke up my ass from both sides.

Well, you've always been enough of a realist, Kurt, to know that both sides
like to believe their narrative is the only factual one when in reality,
neither side's narrative is anywhere near 100% true. As someone reminded me
off-list, the public option was torpedoed by both R & D alike, a testament
to the fact that both sides are beholden to their campaign contributors like
the health insurance lobby, etc.

If anything, the structure of the ACA will actually increase this, plus
(when things are bundled) add
in incentives for docs and hospitals to join the game.

It's a "brave new world" when it comes to how the Affordable Care Act will
be implemented. One thing is clear to me, despite the brickbats being
thrown about: universal health care is coming to stay. Plenty of countries
have made it work (my Australian friends, from one, and they're no goddamn
commies!). There are a lot of different roadmaps for others to follow
because so many others have been able to do successfully what we're still
arguing over. You'd think Americans would want to be a leader in providing
quality healthcare to all its citizens and not just a distant also-ran.

Americans, especially older ones who remember a fairly functional health
insurance system, don't realize how much the landscape has changed. They
don't realize that workers coming up in the economy now don't have anywhere
near the benefits that we had. Once again, the decades of business shedding
their previous committment to health insurance and health insurers seeking
to contain costs, sometimes unfairly has led to the current situation.

All during the debate over the ACA, giant businesses like Wal*mart are
cutting back health benefits even further. That means that more and more
people are eventually going to lose what meager coverage they have and will
likely become advocates (and voters) for universal health care. With all
the ways employers can now dodge providing health care coverage, universal
health care will represent the only chance they have of buying affordable
coverage.

As more companies cut back, that pressure simply increases. Clouding the
issue with accusations of socialism, fascism or Scientology g doesn't
really add to the debate, just to the background noise level. I don't think
the original/current structure of the new law was done very well. That
doesn't mean we'll never hit on the proper formula/implementation. It will
just take a while.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Han wrote:


As far as "death panels" is concerned, this Wall Street article may be
use-
or insightful: http://tinyurl.com/86af5d9

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...43321242833962.
html?KEYWORDS=end+of+life+doctor

Since this deals with personal decisions and not decisions made by
(largely faceless) others, I am not sure how it fits.
Another interesting article popped awhile ago. It shows that
recessions lower health care usage at the same time they show IMPROVED
health care stats. One theory is that a decline in health care use means
a decline in unnecessary care, too, so there are fewer tests that lead
to follow up tests and procedures in people who don¹t actually have a
serious health problemS and fewer cases of medical harm.

A long time ago I read a book about healthcare called "First, Do No Harm."
While reading it I learned that in Great Britain, when there was a doctor's
strike, the hospital death rate usually dropped quite noticeably. The
author claimed that reduction was a result of the cancellation of elective
surgery procedures. During the strikes the doctors still did "emergency
surgery" but they no longer did cosmetic or non-life threatening procedures.
I believe those studies and the one you're referring to illustrate some
interesting issues in modern health care. With MRSA still a serious issue
in so many surgical settings, it's easy to understand why a reduction in
elective surgical procedures could also result in a reduction in deaths.

For example, I just read a study that said drugs like Cipro (broad spectrum
antibiotic) have been shown to provide very little benefit to those with
severe sinus infections. Yet MD's have been prescribing Cipro and friends
for years believing it *was* beneficial. Cipro's use has been associated
with severe tendon damage and some susceptible people who were given Cipro
(like me) have suffered serious iatrogenic complications. Treating those
side-effects/complications have resulted in some pretty high medical costs
that were completely avoidable. Those additional services, like treatment
for hospital acquired MRSA, can end up costing 1,000's of times what the
original treatment cost.

So, as you've pointed out, this is a very complex issue that's going to take
quite a while to sort out especially when the somewhat paradoxical results
you've described (less health care producing better outcomes) have to be
considered. Sadly, I think we're still at the stage where there's enough
conflicting or confusing information that either side has a buffet of issues
to choose from when trying to make their cases.

I think we're going to end up with a system that provides basic health care
for "free" (or at low cost) to all American citizens that also allows for
people who want more to buy supplemental coverage. Wait, that system's
already here for seniors and the disabled. It's called Medicare with a
Medigap supplemental policy from private insurers!

That's why I always have to laugh at people whose panties are tightly wadded
over the possibility of "socialized" medicine in America. All it would take
would be a simple, quick look around to determine that "socialized" medicine
has been here for quite some time. "Social" Security has been around a lot,
lot longer and even survived the rabid anti-communism campaigns of the
1950's. It's not going anywhere, either.

As we've both noted before, just try taking Medicare/SS away from American's
senior citizens. It's the third rail of American politics and now it's
covered with poison AND sharpened to a knife edge AND suspended over a moat
filled with crocs. I don't even think "means testing" recipients, a
time-honored way of limiting scarce resources, will be acceptable to elderly
American voters. As the Baby Boomers become the "Soon in their Tombers"
the problem will only get worse.

--
Bobby G.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

" writes:

That's 34% of his income that he's giving up and using to help
others.

You're counting the money he gives to the Mormon
Church as "helping others"?

I would. Having worked a few major disasters over the years,
Mormon-run disaster relief services have been an important part of
the response. Right up there with the Salvation Army and the Red
Cross. Unlike the Red Cross, they do all their fundraising
in-house so to speak (so they don't annoy you with breathless
missives about the IMMEDIATE NEED FOR MONEY) and unlike FEMA they
actually get there in a timely manner.
As motherjones.com (hardly a bastion of conservative
thinking)
noted:
"Before the storm (Katrina) made landfall, the LDS church in New
Orleans safely evacuated all but about seven families out of about
2,500 local members, largely because the church had created an
automated telephone emergency warning system that alerted all its
members, instructing them to get out of town and telling them
where to go.


Mormans helping their own - no problem there, but this doesn't
support your first sentence above. ( "helping others"? I would.) of
saying Mormans are . Why do you want to cite a source (hardly a
bastion of conservative thinking) ? The `stated information was just
a report of what happened, no spin, just the facts. Does this imply
that conservative thinking tends to overstate, exagerate, or
otherwise spin information?



Two days before the storm made landfall, while FEMA was
floundering,

The problem here was not FEMA, it was the FEMA director, whose only
emergency up to then was that a horse crapped in its tail just vefore
it was scheduled to be shown in a competition. Yep - another Shrub
crony.

FEMA, when manaed properly, has shown itself to be an effective
agency bringing to bear resources that far outweigh anything else
today.



the church dispatched 10 trucks full of tents,
sleeping bags, tarps to cover wrecked roofs, bottled water, and
5-gallon drums of gas from its warehouses to New Orleans and other
hard-hit areas. The supplies were distributed in an orderly
fashion to people who desperately needed them."

Distributed, I might add, without regard to the beliefs of the
recipients.


Who would ask questions of belief in this circumstance? What a
ridiculous statement.

Communities all over the country sent relief workers, food,
clothing, and other basic human necessities. I don't know thwe
count, but there were reports of church-run thrift stores clearing
out their clothing inventory to send to Katrina victims. WHat the
Morman church did was commendable, but in the vast devistation of the
Katrina disaster, not a unique response like you make it out to be.



The discussion here is final tax rates, ans what the 1040 shows is
the real rate, not a rate that is doctored by how you want to spin
ut.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

I think Bobby is or was a journalist or reporter of some sort.

Was.

Don't hold it against him,

Don't worry, I couldn't care less what insulting people think of me. Anyone
who wears the bankruptcy of their ideas on their foreheads does more damage
to their position than anything I could say.

there is a lot of entertainment value in his posts
and what he believes.

Why thank you.

I love his stereotypes and misconceptions about
my own region of the country. ^_^

Name some. Please. I'm always willing to learn and correct my errors. I
may have some opinions about conservatives at large, but that in no way
limits them to the Southern states. (-" A lot of what I believe about the
South is based on the nature of the laws passed in the South, how they fare
when it comes to standardized testing, their voting records, problems
endemic to their area, etc. IOW, clearly verifiable facts and not just
opinions. If I've got those wrong, fire away and 'edumacate' me. (And yes,
I will confess that when I hear someone turn the word "school" into one
having four syllables, as in "Sk-ah-ew-ell" I wince just a little. But I
wince the same way when I hear Canadians, eh, talk the way they do, eh and
when a New Yawker tells me "it's on toity-toid street near the cawfee
shop.")

As for odd beliefs, you may be confusing criticizing *you* with criticizing
your region. Take, for instance, your last incredulous claim that the
government can not create jobs. If you're wrong about that, then it's also
likely you're wrong about my "stereotypes." Take a guess at how many people
in America are employed by state, local and federal governments? Hint:
Government is the largest single employer in the US workforce providing over
22 million jobs.

What I'd really like to know is the source of some of your claims. Is it
right-wing talk radio? I realize you label your comments "fecestious"
whenever you're caught with your pantaloons down around your ankles quoting
something you've obviously heard or read somewhere. So where is that? I'm
sorry, but even when you disown your previous comments as "fecestious" , but
I still assume you actually believe them despite your post-posting
disclaimers. (-: HeyBub uses "hyperbole" to cover his ass although to his
credit, he's often a big enough man to admit when he's wrong. I fall back
on memory loss, and each day I fall a little further. )-:

I've spent a lot of time down South. As you probably know, there are a lot
of military installations down there and I've done stints at NavBuPers in
N'owlins, the Air University in Montgomery (just a wonderful little city
that even has a Shakespeare theater), TRADOC at Fort Jackson in SC, CENTCOM
in Newport News (a dreary little city filled with used car lots and payday
loan offices), etc. All wonderful, friendly people but then again, I've
found all our military installations to contain very nice people. It's why
I take such great issue with HeyBub's characterization of them as stone
killers who joined only to blow things up who can die without mourning
because "they knew the risks."

At my first assignment at the Pentagon, a Marine whom I had just met a few
weeks before insisted on letting him and his buddies help me paint my
mother's house. I didn't detect any desire to blow it up, just a sincere
desire to help. I think it was their way of thanking me for helping them
automate an onerous yearly reporting job that was done on massive,
error-ridden spreadsheets and struck fear, even in the hearts of hardened
USMC officers.

A lot of Southern officers still have a code of chivalry and a pride in
being a true Southern gentlemen. Perhaps that's a stereotype, but it's
something I ran into on many occasions, if only because female officers from
the northern states often took what I thought was undeserving offense at
guys trying to be gentlemen. The women officers, by and large, just wanted
to be "one of the guys."

So what is it about the South you think I've been so "stereotypical" about
or to put it another way, "politically incorrect" about? Remember,
criticizing *you* doesn't count. That's personal! (-:

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
John Carter wrote:



Two days before the storm made landfall, while FEMA was
floundering,

The problem here was not FEMA, it was the FEMA director, whose only
emergency up to then was that a horse crapped in its tail just vefore
it was scheduled to be shown in a competition. Yep - another Shrub
crony.

Not really. The MAIN problem with NOLA was that they followed to the
letter the disaster plan in place at the time. The plan specifically
stated that the Superdome was not to be used as long term shelter, just
until the hurricane came through. After that, the "residents" were
supposed to parceled out to shelters. The plan also specifically stated
that the Dome was not to be stocked or staffed for long term care.
When the flood came about, and there was no place for them to go,
the system broke down. Largely secondary to the fact that the local
government was pretty much incompetent and corrupt. FEMA is not now nor
has it ever been tasked with coming in and doing anything else than
ASSISTING local government. They don't have the ability or authority to
come in and run things. In fact, every disaster plan in the US is based
on the locality being able to sustain itself (at least theoretically)
for three days while the effort is ramped up.
While NOLA was a basket case, most other areas did not have the
complete collapse of services, which argues against it being a
completely FEMA problem.


the church dispatched 10 trucks full of tents,
sleeping bags, tarps to cover wrecked roofs, bottled water, and
5-gallon drums of gas from its warehouses to New Orleans and other
hard-hit areas. The supplies were distributed in an orderly
fashion to people who desperately needed them."

Distributed, I might add, without regard to the beliefs of the
recipients.


Who would ask questions of belief in this circumstance? What a
ridiculous statement.

Nah, not when I was trying to clarify the point since the OP was
asking about how the Mormon's helped others.


Communities all over the country sent relief workers, food,
clothing, and other basic human necessities. I don't know thwe
count, but there were reports of church-run thrift stores clearing
out their clothing inventory to send to Katrina victims. WHat the
Morman church did was commendable, but in the vast devistation of the
Katrina disaster, not a unique response like you make it out to be.

Where did I say it was a unique response. Again, I was responding to
a specific comment about the Mormons.



The discussion here is final tax rates, ans what the 1040 shows is
the real rate, not a rate that is doctored by how you want to spin
ut.

That is ever so rich. The stats I quoted were directly from the
IRS and are the aggregate of all returns filed in whichever category we
are talking about. Not cherry picked from specific individuals to meet a
specific spin.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 02/24/12 06:17 pm, Robert Green wrote:

Look at the MA experience. The state's own figures show that many
people are not buying the policies until they are needed and then
pulling back out when not.. until needed again.

That's a perfect reason for mandating coverage and fining those who like
to
game the system by waiting until the last second to buy coverage. They
need
to be fined MORE than what they would pay in premiums to make the
penalty
meaningful.
snip

Better still, have a govt-run insurance scheme in which people will be
enrolled automatically (and billed for as a surcharge on their tax, or
by some other means) unless they demonstrate that they have some other
coverage that is at least as good.

Yes. There are many ways to set up the system. A lot of them would be
better than what's coming in the ACA, though. It's got far too many rules,
loopholes, exceptions and detail and will probably need to be voided and
redone. But it will be redone. Many other *capitalistic" countries manage
to provide health care without yielding to near hysterical charges of
socialism. If the pool of insured is everyone, then the costs should be
carried by everyone. The current system is in failure mode and needs
fixing. As more people get less and less healthcare from their employers,
the pressure to change the system will only grow.

I think the end product ACA was a travesty of vested interests and that a
simple change in the Medicare eligibility requirements would have been a
much better course of action. Who would pay for it all? The Chinese!
Seriously, we're the richest country that has ever been on the face of the
earth and we're making noises about how we can't afford universal health
care? We need to get in step with the rest of the industrialized world on
this issue.

--
Bobby G.

On 2/28/2012 4:02 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

I think Bobby is or was a journalist or reporter of some sort.

Was.

Don't hold it against him,

Don't worry, I couldn't care less what insulting people think of me. Anyone
who wears the bankruptcy of their ideas on their foreheads does more damage
to their position than anything I could say.

there is a lot of entertainment value in his posts
and what he believes.

Why thank you.

I love his stereotypes and misconceptions about
my own region of the country. ^_^

Name some. Please. I'm always willing to learn and correct my errors. I
may have some opinions about conservatives at large, but that in no way
limits them to the Southern states. (-" A lot of what I believe about the
South is based on the nature of the laws passed in the South, how they fare
when it comes to standardized testing, their voting records, problems
endemic to their area, etc. IOW, clearly verifiable facts and not just
opinions. If I've got those wrong, fire away and 'edumacate' me. (And yes,
I will confess that when I hear someone turn the word "school" into one
having four syllables, as in "Sk-ah-ew-ell" I wince just a little. But I
wince the same way when I hear Canadians, eh, talk the way they do, eh and
when a New Yawker tells me "it's on toity-toid street near the cawfee
shop.")

As for odd beliefs, you may be confusing criticizing *you* with criticizing
your region. Take, for instance, your last incredulous claim that the
government can not create jobs. If you're wrong about that, then it's also
likely you're wrong about my "stereotypes." Take a guess at how many people
in America are employed by state, local and federal governments? Hint:
Government is the largest single employer in the US workforce providing over
22 million jobs.

What I'd really like to know is the source of some of your claims. Is it
right-wing talk radio? I realize you label your comments "fecestious"
whenever you're caught with your pantaloons down around your ankles quoting
something you've obviously heard or read somewhere. So where is that? I'm
sorry, but even when you disown your previous comments as "fecestious" , but
I still assume you actually believe them despite your post-posting
disclaimers. (-: HeyBub uses "hyperbole" to cover his ass although to his
credit, he's often a big enough man to admit when he's wrong. I fall back
on memory loss, and each day I fall a little further. )-:

I've spent a lot of time down South. As you probably know, there are a lot
of military installations down there and I've done stints at NavBuPers in
N'owlins, the Air University in Montgomery (just a wonderful little city
that even has a Shakespeare theater), TRADOC at Fort Jackson in SC, CENTCOM
in Newport News (a dreary little city filled with used car lots and payday
loan offices), etc. All wonderful, friendly people but then again, I've
found all our military installations to contain very nice people. It's why
I take such great issue with HeyBub's characterization of them as stone
killers who joined only to blow things up who can die without mourning
because "they knew the risks."

At my first assignment at the Pentagon, a Marine whom I had just met a few
weeks before insisted on letting him and his buddies help me paint my
mother's house. I didn't detect any desire to blow it up, just a sincere
desire to help. I think it was their way of thanking me for helping them
automate an onerous yearly reporting job that was done on massive,
error-ridden spreadsheets and struck fear, even in the hearts of hardened
USMC officers.

A lot of Southern officers still have a code of chivalry and a pride in
being a true Southern gentlemen. Perhaps that's a stereotype, but it's
something I ran into on many occasions, if only because female officers from
the northern states often took what I thought was undeserving offense at
guys trying to be gentlemen. The women officers, by and large, just wanted
to be "one of the guys."

So what is it about the South you think I've been so "stereotypical" about
or to put it another way, "politically incorrect" about? Remember,
criticizing *you* doesn't count. That's personal! (-:

--
Bobby G.


Bobby, I come from a multi-species family with Roman Catholics, Jews and
space aliens on the maternal side and Southern Baptists, Methodists,
Druids and a group who worships some sort of fungus that glows in the
dark caves they live in on the paternal side. I'm everyone's cousin
which gives me the right to pick on anyone. Mom and Dad were both in
the army during WWII so they're both buried at Arlington National
Cemetery. Mom was a New York Democrat and Dad was a Southern Republican.
I'm neither, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special, they
horrify me. Bobby, you make the mistake of thinking that I take Usenet
seriously and that I believe everything I read or hear. As far as Right
Wing talk radio goes, I can assure you, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and others on a regular basis.
I listen to whatever I find entertaining at the moment and choose to
look up multiple sources whenever I hear something. If I find it funny,
I may post it to tweak the snozolas of the P.L.L.C.F. types who operate
with an emotional rather than a rational mindset. You
did make assumptions about the "anti-ILLEGAL" immigration bill passed by
the legislature of Alabamastan or you were parroting the silly lies you
may have heard that the P.L.L.C.F. types have been spewing about a law
they never even bothered to read. I actually spoke with one of the
legislative sponsors of the bill and suggested that "ILLEGAL aliens" be
denied access to civil courts if they ILLEGALLY entered the country
under their own volition but not those kidnapped and enslaved. I do find
it quite funny that the P.L.L.C.F. types can never define the word
"racist" which is their favorite swear word they apply to everyone or
every thing they disagree with, especially laws that prohibit ILLEGAL
activity by mostly minorities. I can bust another of your stereotypical
assumptions, neither me or my eight siblings sound like Jeff Foxworthy
unless we want to as entertainment for our Yankee relatives. I suppose
it may have something to do with the fact that both parents taught
college courses at one time or another and we all grew up speaking
correct English. I don't and never have used "y'all" in normal
conversation unless I'm hamming up a "stereotypical" Southern accent. My
Hillbilly character is only one of many I use when calling a radio talk
show. It's a great deal of fun to call as several different people
during one of the local programs. ^_^

TDD

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
If being much too conservative a Christian to revere Adam Smith as a
prophet and his "free market capitalism" as divine revelation make me a
socialist, then I wear the badge proudly.

Perce

Stormie might ask the same "are you a socialist?" question of Mitt Romney.
Or has he forgotten in his search for socialists that fellow Mormon and
Republican candidate for President also happens to be the author of
Romneycare?

Is Mitt a socialist for realizing that privately funded healthcare is in
shambles in this country? If true, someone should tell him he's running
with the wrong party. The reality is that he woke up a little sooner than
some to the fact that universal health care is an unstoppable world-wide
force that the US is well behind the curve on. Figuring that out does not
make Mitt or anyone else a socialist. It makes them a realist.

Every year more and more people lose or get priced out of employer-provided
health care. The old system of "work and get health benefits" is dying.
Conservatives can rail all they want against the government stepping into
the breach, but as more and more votes lose benefits, the call for a
government solution will only get louder. Just as Social Security was the
result of the 1929 exercise in free market excesses, universal health care
will be the end result of the 2008 financial debacle.

--
Bobby G.



On 02/24/12 11:27 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

You socialist, also? Sounds it.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Percival P. wrote in message
...

Better still, have a govt-run insurance scheme in which people will be
enrolled automatically (and billed for as a surcharge on their tax, or
by some other means) unless they demonstrate that they have some other
coverage that is at least as good.

Perce

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



I think the end product ACA was a travesty of vested interests and that a
simple change in the Medicare eligibility requirements would have been a
much better course of action. Who would pay for it all? The Chinese!
Seriously, we're the richest country that has ever been on the face of the
earth and we're making noises about how we can't afford universal health
care? We need to get in step with the rest of the industrialized world on
this issue.

Never have been able to figure out why they don't try the obvious.
Healthcare more or less follows the 20-80 rule where 20% of the people
use 80% of the resources (if anything it is probably even more
concentrated). Set up a reinsurance fund that takes care of all expenses
over a certain level that is funded by a surcharge. This is the same
model that is used in Property and Casualty to cover fire and other
risks in "declining" neighborhoods.
This would take the worst risk and spread it out over the entire
pool instead of just concentrating it.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Never have been able to figure out why they don't try the obvious.
Healthcare more or less follows the 20-80 rule where 20% of the people
use 80% of the resources (if anything it is probably even more
concentrated). Set up a reinsurance fund that takes care of all
expenses over a certain level that is funded by a surcharge. This is
the same model that is used in Property and Casualty to cover fire and
other risks in "declining" neighborhoods.
This would take the worst risk and spread it out over the entire
pool instead of just concentrating it.

That seems very similar to my own slant on healthcare. Make everyone
pay for a certain amount of basic and catastrophic insurance, then have
available additional insurance for those willing to get heart, lung,
kidney transplants (including dialysis), etc, etc. Start out with
everyone paying the same rate for the additional insurance. Perhaps
increase rates for accident-prone people like me grin.

I think your 20-80 rule is indeed much too rosy. I think it is
generally accepted that 80% of the average person's healthcare costs
come in the last year of life. Now, I don't know whether that is
because of the high cost of cancer treatment and resuscitation of just
about dead people, but it does make you wonder whether the decisions of
what to do have done to oneself towards end of life is something people
should be forced to consider. I have made "living will" etc decisions
....

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:



That seems very similar to my own slant on healthcare. Make everyone
pay for a certain amount of basic and catastrophic insurance, then have
available additional insurance for those willing to get heart, lung,
kidney transplants (including dialysis), etc, etc. Start out with
everyone paying the same rate for the additional insurance. Perhaps
increase rates for accident-prone people like me grin.
The problem is that everytime that gets tried, we get bogged down on
what is "basic" insurance. Dialysis is the least of our worries
personally (FWIW) since you automatically qualify for Medicaid if you
need dialysis.


I think your 20-80 rule is indeed much too rosy. I think it is
generally accepted that 80% of the average person's healthcare costs
come in the last year of life. Now, I don't know whether that is
because of the high cost of cancer treatment and resuscitation of just
about dead people, but it does make you wonder whether the decisions of
what to do have done to oneself towards end of life is something people
should be forced to consider. I have made "living will" etc decisions
...
Checked around: 1 percent of the population accounts for 30 percent
of the nation's health care expenditures. ABout 30% of MCare's budget is
spent on those in the last year of their life. It is largely because you
are sickest before you die. Sorta hard to argue.
I have thought (though never have had the money to actually finance
such a study--maybe if I hit Powerball tonight) that this was a little
skewed.
I had an Uncle that died of a heart attack. The last year of his
life he had expenditures of around $50,000, with 90% of that being in
the time frame from when he came to the hospital to when he died about 6
hours later (including a chopper ride from rural Arkansas to Little Rock
to try a bypass). I have always wondered how much of that 30% is acute
treatment (he was still alive when he landed at Little Rock, but died
during surgery because of the damage) giving the guy a chance and how
much was essentially PR/CYA treatment of someone already gone. I
obviously have a much different view of the latter than the former.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Ran across this article, Han,
http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html

Among the highlights:
Medicare did a major analysis of end-of-life spending trends in 1993,
looking at data for 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1988. Gerald Riley, Medicare
actuary, conducted the analysis with colleague James Lubitz and
published it in the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine. They found no
evidence that elderly persons in the last year of life account for a
larger share of Medicare expenditures today than before the onslaught of
technology. In fact, Medicare paid the exact same percentage for
patients in the last two months of life in 1976 as in 1988.
€ 27 to 30 percent of Medicare payments cover the cost of care for
people in the last year of life.
€ 40 percent of Medicare dollars cover care for people in the last
month.
€ 12 percent of Medicare spending covers people who are in the last
two months.
€ 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for 70 percent of
program spending.


Dr. Riley reappeared last year in Health Services Research. Using the
Continuous Medicare History Sample, containing annual summaries of
claims data on a 5 percent sample from 1978 to 2006, he found the share
of Medicare payments going to persons in their last year of life
declined slightly from 28.3 percent in 1978 to 25.1 percent in 2006.
After adjustment for age, sex, and death rates, there was no significant
trend.

Health Serv Res. 2010 Apr;45(2):565-76. Epub 2010 Feb 9.
Long-term trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life.
Riley GF, Lubitz JD.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz