On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:13:14 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:45:21 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:00:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the
neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is
actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill.

Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate
Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American
health-care system, especially for one segment of the population.
Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste
money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway?
Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc

Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more
resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing,
better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like
in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will
mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will
eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which
is antithetical to our society and it's foundations.

We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th
century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather
than embracing on the floor of the Senate.

You're paraphrasing Mr. Altman's viewpoint I expect. No one
discussing such a delicate subject would be so inarticulate and crude.

Jon - did you watch the video? He said exactly that. Equalization of
the system in which one group is given less to give a different group
more.

It's a valid discussion but no one easily had. I just had a very
close experience with exactly this area. Methods and resources
available to treat people late in life are truly astounding. Every
set of organs have their specialist/advocate and they all have to
confer on the best path for each patient.

While the specialization and tight focus creates better outcomes, that
methodology is not inexpensive.

The large insurance groups have negotiated agreements with providers.
God fobid you walk into the hospital ill and require that focus
without insurance. Anyone with a house and a retirement account could
be wiped out in the matter of days.

A specialized MRI and the specialist to read it is $7000 off the
street. The insurance company pays $1500.

The system is screwed up in a big way.

At least we have something in common - we agree on that.

I also have personal experience with insurance groups getting a cut on
procedures - too long a story, but you are right.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I think I can say that
I'm highly suspicious of any national health care proposal given the
experiences of the average Canadian and British citizens with regard
to this aspect of living.

My biggest complaint is the 33% in average admin costs. The
government does it for medicare for about 2%.

Single payer system is the best answer. No gov't between you and your
doctors. Just eliminate the stinkweeds skimming the admin percentage.