Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

You're totally ignoring what was quoted. I gave you my cite, let's
see your's, not some guesstimate on your part.

Obviously, it ignores reality.

No guesstimate on my part.

I signed the checks as well as the forms for my mother.

The dollar outlay wasn't what was questioned; the statistics not cited
on the fraction of healthcare for elderly that swing's reference seems
to refute was the subject.

The point is that with proper attention to personal care there could
have been a plan in place to mitigate the financial hardship.

Speaking of which, if you haven't, now would be a good time to get your
own plans completed.

The point we're making along w/ many of our reactionary friends is it
really chaps our axx@!es that we're expected to pay for those who choose
not to take care of themselves when we've done the responsible thing one
way or the other--either in home or ensuring the resources are there for
extended care in the eventuality it's needed.

How i has become such a widespread belief that that somehow is
government's responsibility for everyone is beyond my ken.

--

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

And don't tell me it doesn't work ... we, as a family, are fresh
from taking turns taking care of my FIL in the last two years of his
life, no nursing home, no nursing care ... we wiped his ass
ourselves instead of paying someone the $5K/month required to do
just that.

And what about the person who has no family?

Should they just shoot themselves?

The should make a plan and carry it out -- that could be LTC insurance,
arrangements for private 3rd parties, whatever--but it ain't my
responsibility nor that of government.

--

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

If he had been responsible and bought the long-term care policy, he
would have been in far better shape.

Don't know that he didn't have.

What happens when supplemental coverage maxs out?

With mother the combination of her SS widows benefits paid daily
cost of the assisted living facility until forced to nursing home.
The combination of the care policy and SS covered virtually all of
that cost.

And when your mother went into the nursing home, didn't
medicare/medicaid pick up a large portion of the cost?

No. LTC picked up after the waiting period and paid until her date of death.

That cost was probably considerably more than herr health care costs
were say five years previously which is why my comment thst medical
expenses as one approaches end of life are often astronomical and are
what is breaking the Medicare/Medicaid bank.

The point is, folks need to plan for their futures and take steps
before they reach a crisis, not be like TheDoofus.

A little tough to plan for your future when trying to survive on a
minimum wage job.
....

Still, it's the individual's responsibility. Get a better job. Start
early. Don't mimic TheDoofus and saddle the rest of us for your lack of
responsibility and initiative.

If from age 20 to 65 you haven't been able to advance beyond minimum
wage, then there's a real problem--the question is whether that problem
is a real limitation or a lifestyle choice. I don't have much problem
w/ helping for the (relatively) few who have the real handicap; I've a
MAJOR problem w/ the rest (like the ex-SIL I've fondly ( ) named
TheDoofus who live w/o any comprehension of tomorrow and expect somebody
else to clean up their messes. Thank you, but I decline to participate
willingly in that process.

--


--

In article
dpb writes:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
Had a guy tell me it cost him over $65,000 the previous year to keep
his wife in the same nursing home my mother was in for almost 2 years.
...
If he had been responsible and bought the long-term care policy, he
would have been in far better shape.

You forgot, "for a while."
Long-term care doesn't last forever.

Last year, we got to deal with the delight of poor diagnosis that
is post-bypass delirium. My father had bypass surgery and came
home from the hospital barely containable (he escaped an Alzheimers
wing twice). We, which mainly means my mother (since no one else
is local) got to going on the nursing home shopping process.

Dad has long-term insurance, but it has a lifetime cap. So the
dilemma pondered at the time was whether to use it or save it for
a worse time.

As it turns out, everything worked out fine and a few months put
him mostly back to his old self.

Not taking a side. Wish I knew what the ideal answer was.

--
Drew Lawson | It's not enough to be alive
| when your future's been deferred

Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
dpb writes:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
Had a guy tell me it cost him over $65,000 the previous year to keep
his wife in the same nursing home my mother was in for almost 2 years.
...
If he had been responsible and bought the long-term care policy, he
would have been in far better shape.

You forgot, "for a while."
Long-term care doesn't last forever.
....
Dad has long-term insurance, but it has a lifetime cap. ...

That depends on the policy, of course. Some are better than others;
careful shopping is required (just as it is for any other major purchase).

Folks' policies (and ours) don't have time/$$ limits -- they last until
DOD once initiated and continue in qualified institution. Have opted to
self-insure for any possible inhome or assisted living type arrangement;
that's again a choice one must make based on specific circumstances.

I'll iterate that it still is a personal responsibility; not a generic
responsibility of the government however one chooses to go.

--

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:31:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:23:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

If that's correct, a single-payer federal system could waste 1/3 and
still break even.

Assuming, arguendo, that the 1/3 number is correct: So what? One-third
seems like a lot, but how does it compare to the alternatives?

We'll never know unless we try the alternative, will we?

Why won't we know? "The alertnative" has been tried in many places and
a comprehensive study of that experience should yield the answer to that
question.

Because the places have greatly varying results. From all accounts,
Britain's national health program is a mess. Canada's is a little
better, and the systems in Germany and Japan seem to be working quite
well.



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

And don't tell me it doesn't work ... we, as a family, are fresh
from taking turns taking care of my FIL in the last two years of his
life, no nursing home, no nursing care ... we wiped his ass
ourselves instead of paying someone the $5K/month required to do
just that.

And what about the person who has no family?

Should they just shoot themselves?

Tsk, tsk ... that's precisely why we, the responsible, give to
charities, churches, and the like ... to care for both the unfortunate,
and for those unfortunately irresponsible ... a method with a track
record of more than a few thousand years, many more than the last couple
of hundred when governments became heavily involved and the
irresponsible became the prevalent type.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

If he had been responsible and bought the long-term care policy, he
would have been in far better shape.

Don't know that he didn't have.

What happens when supplemental coverage maxs out?

With mother the combination of her SS widows benefits paid daily cost
of the assisted living facility until forced to nursing home. The
combination of the care policy and SS covered virtually all of that
cost.

And when your mother went into the nursing home, didn't
medicare/medicaid pick up a large portion of the cost?

No. LTC picked up after the waiting period and paid until her date of
death.

....

Actually, I responded a little too quickly to be precise.

Medicaid was never in the picture; she had (since she and Dad had
planned ahead) assets in place to take care of herself--Medicaid only
comes into play in the case of an indigent part. (Let's not get off
onto to the rant over those who deliberately scheme to transfer assets
to achieve such... Those a-holes _ought_ to take your advice in
another response or have such advice administered gratis for them.)

Anyway, back to the correction/addition--of course Medicare paid for
covered medical expenses; there's essentially no avoiding that since
private carriers now cease to write coverage past age 65. But, at least
there _are_ premiums although it appears they are set insufficiently low
at present.

And there's the demonstration of where it seems the rub will be w/
single-payer when attempting to add in the vast unwashed masses: there's
no way those who aren't covered can pay the premiums that will be
required afaict.

As for the other subthread--as for Japan and Germany, the size of the
economies and their demographics make comparisons probably of little
direct help to the US. I'll admit I've not studied them so perhaps
there's something that could be of some benefit but I've not heard a
peep from the powers that be that either is anywhere in the mix.
Certainly Japan has been through even worse economic travails than the
US; I don't no precisely how much of that is possibly related to such
programs but it would be unlikely to be totally unrelated I'd surmise.

--

"Swingman" wrote:

Tsk, tsk ... that's precisely why we, the responsible, give to
charities, churches, and the like ... to care for both the
unfortunate, and for those unfortunately irresponsible ... a method
with a track record of more than a few thousand years, many more
than the last couple of hundred when governments became heavily
involved and the irresponsible became the prevalent type.

An admiral trait; however, how does that provide a means of
containment of run away health care costs?

:Lew

dpb wrote:

Anyway, back to the correction/addition--of course Medicare paid for
covered medical expenses; there's essentially no avoiding that since
private carriers now cease to write coverage past age 65.

And those costs paid my Medicare were higher, lower, or about the same
as 5 years previous?

Lew

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:31:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:23:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

If that's correct, a single-payer federal system could waste 1/3
and still break even.

Assuming, arguendo, that the 1/3 number is correct: So what?
One-third seems like a lot, but how does it compare to the
alternatives?

We'll never know unless we try the alternative, will we?

Why won't we know? "The alertnative" has been tried in many places
and a comprehensive study of that experience should yield the answer
to that question.

Because the places have greatly varying results. From all accounts,
Britain's national health program is a mess. Canada's is a little
better, and the systems in Germany and Japan seem to be working quite
well.

So you're saying that you have every confidence that the politicans will
screw it up worse than Britain?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
dpb wrote:

Anyway, back to the correction/addition--of course Medicare paid for
covered medical expenses; there's essentially no avoiding that since
private carriers now cease to write coverage past age 65.

And those costs paid my Medicare were higher, lower, or about the same
as 5 years previous?


immaterial to the point...

Medicare is the only game in town (w/ supplemental "hole" coverage, of
course).

You're wanting even more of same aiui...

--

dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
dpb wrote:

Anyway, back to the correction/addition--of course Medicare paid for
covered medical expenses; there's essentially no avoiding that since
private carriers now cease to write coverage past age 65.

And those costs paid my Medicare were higher, lower, or about the same
as 5 years previous?


immaterial to the point...

Medicare is the only game in town (w/ supplemental "hole" coverage, of
course).

You're wanting even more of same aiui...

But, to demonstrate there's no "one size fits all", actual medical costs
were considerably less last several years than had been at your
arbitrarily selected time frame.

But, you have no idea how long she was in an assisted living facility as
opposed to the nursing home and I'm not going into further detail but
suffice to say the total premiums paid for both LTC policies were more
than repaid in benefits...

That isn't always so, of course, as if it were universally true the
underwriters aren't doing their actuarial job correctly. The point is
that if one will plan ahead and be responsible enough to not blow every
disposable nickel on instantaneous gratification, even those w/
relatively modest incomes _CAN_ be in decent shape for those
circumstances w/o adding their burdens to the general budget.

I know, that's a novel concept any more it seems...

--

Larry Blanchard wrote:


Because the places have greatly varying results. From all accounts,
Britain's national health program is a mess. Canada's is a little
better, and the systems in Germany and Japan seem to be working quite
well.


Here is an interesting set of statistics. They are from "The Economists World
in Figures" and quoted in: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/pdf/mwo060509.pdf

They show we (the US) are spending more and getting less (in terms of longevity)
than many other countries. It says nothing about how to fix, just that fixing
is needed.


“According to the Economist the total US spend on healthcare is 15.4% of
GDP including both state and private . With that it gets 2.6 doctors per 1,000
people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average age of 78.2

“UK - spends 8.1% of GDP, gets 2.3 doctors, 4.2 hospital beds and live to an
average age of 79.4. So for roughly half the cost their citizens overall get
about the same benefit in terms of longevity of life.

“Canada - spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare, gets 2.1 doctors, 3.6 hospital
beds and live until they are 80.6 yrs

“Now if we look at the more social model in Europe the results become even
more surprising:
“France - spends 10.5%, 3.4 docs, 7.5 beds and live until they are 80.6
“Spain - spends 8.1% , 3.3 docs , 3.8 beds and live until they are 81

“As a whole Europe spends 9.6% of GDP on healthcare, has 3.9 doctors per
1,000 people, 6.6 hospital beds and live until they are 81.15 years old.

-- Doug

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:04:19 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:


Because the places have greatly varying results. From all accounts,
Britain's national health program is a mess. Canada's is a little
better, and the systems in Germany and Japan seem to be working quite
well.


Here is an interesting set of statistics. They are from "The Economists World
in Figures" and quoted in: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/pdf/mwo060509.pdf

They show we (the US) are spending more and getting less (in terms of longevity)
than many other countries. It says nothing about how to fix, just that fixing
is needed.

"Longevity" isn't a good measure of health care at all. Equalize
infant mortality, and drop suicide and murder out of the "health care"
equation.

“According to the Economist the total US spend on healthcare is 15.4% of
GDP including both state and private . With that it gets 2.6 doctors per 1,000
people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average age of 78.2

Quoting a quoted source? WHy don't you go to the horse?

Yes, fixing is needed. The government broke it and you expect the
government to fix it with more government?

snip

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:


Because the places have greatly varying results. From all accounts,
Britain's national health program is a mess. Canada's is a little
better, and the systems in Germany and Japan seem to be working quite
well.


Here is an interesting set of statistics. They are from "The
Economists World in Figures" and quoted in:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/pdf/mwo060509.pdf

They show we (the US) are spending more and getting less (in terms of
longevity) than many other countries. It says nothing about how to
fix, just that fixing is needed.

Be very, very careful with assertions about life expectancy. The definition
used can have a very significant effect on the result of the calculation,
and most of the difference, I think you will find if you look in detail at
the statistics, is not in how long the average adult will live but how
likely one is to survive birth, with the survival rate at birth controlled
more by the definition of "live birth" than by any significant difference in
medical treatment.

"According to the Economist the total US spend on healthcare is 15.4%
of
GDP including both state and private . With that it gets 2.6 doctors
per 1,000 people, 3.3 hospital beds and its people live to an average
age of 78.2

"UK - spends 8.1% of GDP, gets 2.3 doctors, 4.2 hospital beds and
live to an average age of 79.4. So for roughly half the cost their
citizens overall get about the same benefit in terms of longevity of
life.

"Canada - spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare, gets 2.1 doctors, 3.6
hospital
beds and live until they are 80.6 yrs

"Now if we look at the more social model in Europe the results become
even
more surprising:
"France - spends 10.5%, 3.4 docs, 7.5 beds and live until they are
80.6 "Spain - spends 8.1% , 3.3 docs , 3.8 beds and live until they
are 81

"As a whole Europe spends 9.6% of GDP on healthcare, has 3.9 doctors
per 1,000 people, 6.6 hospital beds and live until they are 81.15
years old.

-- Doug

"dpb" wrote:

immaterial to the point...

No it is exactly the point.

Health care costs esclate as the end of life approaches which is
exactly why Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble and a solution must be
found.

Lew

On Jun 6, 2:18*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"dpb" wrote:
immaterial to the point...

No it is exactly the point.

Health care costs esclate as the end of life approaches which is
exactly why Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble and a solution must be
found.

Lew

Soylent Green?

krw wrote:
"Longevity" isn't a good measure of health care at all. Equalize
infant mortality, and drop suicide and murder out of the "health care"
equation.

Let's see. According to the CDC the US death rate is about 810 deaths per
100,000 population. The suicide rate is 11.1 per 100,000 and the murder rate is
6.5. Not a significant factor. Especially since other countries have murder
and suicide rates in the same neighborhood. For example, western Europe has a
murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000.

Infant mortality is definitely a heath care issue. As someone mentioned, there
is some difference in how those are accounted for. But I will need to actual
numbers to decide if those differences are significant.

-- Doug

krw wrote:


Quoting a quoted source? WHy don't you go to the horse?

If you are not happy with the depth of my research, feel free to contribute your
own. I look forward to it.

Yes, fixing is needed. The government broke it and you expect the
government to fix it with more government?

I said nothing about who broke it nor who I expect to fix it.

-- Doug

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Be very, very careful with assertions about life expectancy. The definition
used can have a very significant effect on the result of the calculation,
and most of the difference, I think you will find if you look in detail at
the statistics, is not in how long the average adult will live but how
likely one is to survive birth, with the survival rate at birth controlled
more by the definition of "live birth" than by any significant difference in
medical treatment.

The term used in the quote was "longevity" which means life expectancy at
birth. I know there are differences in how live births are accounted for. Do
you have any data that shows this is the dominate factor in the differences in
longevity shown in the quote? Numbers from an authoritative source?
Thanks,
Doug

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:58:12 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

krw wrote:
"Longevity" isn't a good measure of health care at all. Equalize
infant mortality, and drop suicide and murder out of the "health care"
equation.

Let's see. According to the CDC the US death rate is about 810 deaths per
100,000 population. The suicide rate is 11.1 per 100,000 and the murder rate is
6.5. Not a significant factor. Especially since other countries have murder
and suicide rates in the same neighborhood. For example, western Europe has a
murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000.

You'll find that apples to apples, the numbers are similar if not
biased the other way. Now look a cancer survivability.

Infant mortality is definitely a heath care issue. As someone mentioned, there
is some difference in how those are accounted for. But I will need to actual
numbers to decide if those differences are significant.

IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
Health care costs esclate as the end of life approaches which is
exactly why Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble and a solution must be
found.

Yeah. All this talk about escalating health care and the end of life makes
me think about the movie Soylent Green. Not exactly the same thing, it does
give one to thought.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
Soylent Green?

Great minds....

krw wrote:

Infant mortality is definitely a heath care issue. As someone mentioned, there
is some difference in how those are accounted for. But I will need to actual
numbers to decide if those differences are significant.

IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

Read it again. I said I needed some facts in order to make up my mind.
-- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message

Read it again. I said I needed some facts in order to make up my mind.
-- Doug

Don't be silly, this is USENET

"krw" wrote in message
IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

Sounds like you've made up your mind about him with little evidence one way
or another.

What was that you were saying about prejudice?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

immaterial to the point...

No it is exactly the point.

Health care costs esclate as the end of life approaches which is
exactly why Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble and a solution must be
found.

But the sidebar was about LT care and not dumping oneself onto the gov't.

The costs in the given instance that were Medicare are essentially
irrelevant to that discussion as there no longer (thanks to our
omniscient pol's) is any other game in town past 65 so that part is a
wash whether one has planned for LT care or not.

I noted upthread that while there are at least some premiums it is
apparent that they aren't actuarially sound or there wouldn't the problem.

This then revolves back to the problem that I fail to understand how one
can take one or more demonstrated to be non-self-funding programs and
expect another of the same ilk to somehow magically solve the problem.

I've said my piece; I've yet to hear or see any convincing arguments
about how the proposals presently in the trial-balloon stage are going
to make any real change other than to massively increase the size of the
federal deficit...

--

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:05:17 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"krw" wrote in message
IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

Sounds like you've made up your mind about him with little evidence one way
or another.

Certainly I have on the *preponderance* of evidence. I'm not stupid.

What was that you were saying about prejudice?

I know a little about economics. I've seen a *lot* of the US
government. That alone is enough to convince me that socialized
health care is a ruinous move.

"dpb" wrote:

But the sidebar was about LT care and not dumping oneself onto the
gov't.

"Dumping".

Great choice of words, it says a lot.

What would you have a person do who has played by the rules, saved for
a "rainy day", provided insurance coverage, then as a result of an
unforeseen illness or accident, find themselves in debt in the 6
figure range and has to declare bankruptcy?

Hand them a gun?

The above is happening every day at an alarming rate.

The so called "Middle Class" is being eaten alive by out of control
medical costs which by and large are being driven by health care
insurance exceptions which then leave the policy holder holding the
bag.

It is just one of the signs of a broken health care system which is
not going to be fixed with advanced planning by an individual for an
individual.

Lew

"krw" wrote:

I'm not stupid.

Really?

Lew

krw wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:05:17 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"krw" wrote in message
IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

Sounds like you've made up your mind about him with little evidence one way
or another.

Certainly I have on the *preponderance* of evidence. I'm not stupid.

Nobody has said you are. However, you seem to believe that I am advocating some
big government solution to health care. If so, you are wrong.

I know a little about economics. I've seen a *lot* of the US
government. That alone is enough to convince me that socialized
health care is a ruinous move.

OK. We agree that US health care needs fixing. Any thoughts on how to do this?

Thanks,
Doug

A Proposal:

Nobody, including me, wants anymore gov't involvement in our lives
than me.

The exception being when the scope of the task is such that only
government has the necessary resources to handle the task.

Reorganization of the health care systems is IMHO, one of those tasks;
HOWEVER, is does not require the government taking over the health
care system such as has been done in other countries.

Rather is will require the government to develop a set of laws that
will govern the way private enterprise operates in the health care
market.

One of those ways is for the government to form the John Q Citizen
division of the federal employees health care system and offer
coverage to anybody who wants to participate at competitive rates.

You don't have to buy the government insurance, but you DO have to buy
health insurance from somebody.

There will be a segment of the population which will require some form
of subsidy, and I leave that to others to resolve.

The whole purpose is to provide health care for everybody so that we
can transition from sickness treatment to preventative health care at
lower cost per transaction.

A benefit of such a program is that it will force the private sector
to offer competitive health insurance rather than the "Cherry Picking"
products now offered.

Open up the drug purchasing programs to competitive bidding, and I
don't want to hear any bull **** from the drug companies about
research costs.

They all ready spend more on advertising than they do on research.

The above still does not address the ballooning costs of health care
for the elderly, but it is a start, and it would not surprise me if
much of the above is where things are headed based on some of Obama's
comments.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
krw wrote:
"Longevity" isn't a good measure of health care at all. Equalize
infant mortality, and drop suicide and murder out of the "health
care" equation.

Let's see. According to the CDC the US death rate is about 810
deaths per 100,000 population. The suicide rate is 11.1 per 100,000
and the murder rate is
6.5. Not a significant factor. Especially since other countries
have murder and suicide rates in the same neighborhood. For example,
western Europe has a murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000.

Is this the same western Europe that the gun control advocates hold up as a
glowing model of the success of gun control in preventing murders?

Infant mortality is definitely a heath care issue. As someone
mentioned, there is some difference in how those are accounted for.
But I will need to actual numbers to decide if those differences are
significant.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Be very, very careful with assertions about life expectancy. The
definition used can have a very significant effect on the result of
the calculation, and most of the difference, I think you will find
if you look in detail at the statistics, is not in how long the
average adult will live but how likely one is to survive birth, with
the survival rate at birth controlled more by the definition of
"live birth" than by any significant difference in medical treatment.

The term used in the quote was "longevity" which means life
expectancy at birth. I know there are differences in how live births
are accounted for. Do you have any data that shows this is the
dominate factor in the differences in longevity shown in the quote?
Numbers from an authoritative source?

The trouble with looking for "numbers from an authoritative source" is that
if there was such source then there would not be a problem.

Run some simulations and you'll see how radically a small change in the
definition of "live birth" can affect the outcome.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

The trouble with looking for "numbers from an authoritative source" is that
if there was such source then there would not be a problem.

Run some simulations and you'll see how radically a small change in the
definition of "live birth" can affect the outcome.

If you've done this, I'd love to see the results. I won't be surprised to see
that small changes have significant effect on the outcome. However, it still
does not answer the core question of whether such changes actually have an
impact. -- Doug

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:47:50 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

"krw" wrote:

I'm not stupid.

Really?

Not stupid enough to snip context, no.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:49:33 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

krw wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:05:17 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"krw" wrote in message
IOW, you don't care about facts when they get in the way of your
prejudices.

Sounds like you've made up your mind about him with little evidence one way
or another.

Certainly I have on the *preponderance* of evidence. I'm not stupid.

Nobody has said you are. However, you seem to believe that I am advocating some
big government solution to health care. If so, you are wrong.

Ypu've already bought into the propaganda.

I know a little about economics. I've seen a *lot* of the US
government. That alone is enough to convince me that socialized
health care is a ruinous move.

OK. We agree that US health care needs fixing. Any thoughts on how to do this?

*MORE* direct pay. Insurance, by its nature, is intended to pay for
what one cannot afford to replace (do you buy insurance to cover oil
changes?). Get the government *OUT* of health care (some states do
not allow high deductible insurance). Get rid of most malpractice
(you don't think the government will allow you to sue them?).

The problem isn't "health care". That's not broken. The problem is
the cost. Government is *not* going to solve that one with more
government. Never have. Never will.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:23:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

If that's correct, a single-payer federal system could waste 1/3 and
still break even.

Assuming, arguendo, that the 1/3 number is correct: So what?
One-third seems like a lot, but how does it compare to the
alternatives?

We'll never know unless we try the alternative, will we?

We have tried it. Both Medicare and Medicaid are both, essentially,
single-payer.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

The trouble with looking for "numbers from an authoritative source"
is that if there was such source then there would not be a problem.

Run some simulations and you'll see how radically a small change in
the definition of "live birth" can affect the outcome.

If you've done this, I'd love to see the results. I won't be
surprised to see that small changes have significant effect on the
outcome. However, it still does not answer the core question of
whether such changes actually have an impact. -- Doug

Have to find the spreadsheet again. Played with it a long time ago in an
idle moment and may not have even saved it.