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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Tommy is trolling again. No one is seriously considering Altman's idea
of warehousing the sick until they die, and withholding expensive
treatment.

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.

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.

This same thing (withholding health care from the old people) is
expressed the book by Tom Daschle the former U.S. Senator from South Dakota.

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.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:11:38 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

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.

This same thing (withholding health care from the old people) is
expressed the book by Tom Daschle the former U.S. Senator from South Dakota.

Pardon me if I ask for a few quotes. It's hard to believe these guys
would be that calloused.

I always thought Daschle was a pussy. May have been a fine senator, I
don't know. I hated him as speaker.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 02:25:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:34:02 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

That 2% is a questionable number, very narrowly defined and does not
include the doctor's side of the billing
We have doctors here who discourage medicare customers because the
government paperwork is onerous and they are "slow pay".
That is not saying the insurance companies are any better but I am not
sure the government will be an improvement.

BTW that "administrative cost" is "jobs". What will we do for them if
we put all of those insurance people out of work?

I'd like to know the tradeoff before answering.

In any case, the system needs to become more efficient. Such is the
case that jobs are lost when processes are automated.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:07 -0700, jps wrote:

That 2% is a questionable number, very narrowly defined and does not
include the doctor's side of the billing
We have doctors here who discourage medicare customers because the
government paperwork is onerous and they are "slow pay".
That is not saying the insurance companies are any better but I am not
sure the government will be an improvement.

BTW that "administrative cost" is "jobs". What will we do for them if
we put all of those insurance people out of work?
I'd like to know the tradeoff before answering.

In any case, the system needs to become more efficient. Such is the
case that jobs are lost when processes are automated.

I just fear that we will simply roll all of that bureaucracy out of
the insurance industry and into government where bureaucracy was
invented and make a cumbersome process worse.
Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument that it will be more
affordable.
On the one hand they say there are lots of healthy, working, young
adults who don't have insurance and who would put money into the
system and then they say the people without insurance are mostly kids
and people who are already very ill. (the pre-existing condition
folks). Obama has finally started saying this won't be "free" medical
care. I am just not sure how many uninsured are prepared for a $500+ a
month medical insurance bill. (assuming the government actually wants
"pay as you go") Medicare is bankrupt and still going.
Until we get a better grip on the facts here we don't have a clue what
it will ultimately cost. I do not believe streamlining the billing
process will save enough to make this revenue neutral.
I suppose at this point, what is another trillion in deficit
spending?


I wonder what the impact would be if we removed the "caps" on salary for
Social Security and Medicare taxes, and added "all income" to the pool
of funds that should be taxable for purposes of Social Security,
Medicare, and a national health insurance program.

In other words, the rate you are paying for Social Security and Medicare
would not change, but you'd pay that rate on *all* income, instead of it
being capped as it is now.

My health insurance is via a PPO program, and I use a fairly large local
practice for just about everything except dental and opthamology. Every
time I go to one of the practice's offices, I see at least four young
ladies doing nothing but playing footsie on the phone with private
insurance companies, who apparently do everything they to make doctors'
offices jump through hoops to get coverage for their patients.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:48:31 -0400, HK wrote:

I just fear that we will simply roll all of that bureaucracy out of
the insurance industry and into government where bureaucracy was
invented and make a cumbersome process worse.
Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument that it will be more
affordable.
On the one hand they say there are lots of healthy, working, young
adults who don't have insurance and who would put money into the
system and then they say the people without insurance are mostly kids
and people who are already very ill. (the pre-existing condition
folks). Obama has finally started saying this won't be "free" medical
care. I am just not sure how many uninsured are prepared for a $500+ a
month medical insurance bill. (assuming the government actually wants
"pay as you go") Medicare is bankrupt and still going.
Until we get a better grip on the facts here we don't have a clue what
it will ultimately cost. I do not believe streamlining the billing
process will save enough to make this revenue neutral.
I suppose at this point, what is another trillion in deficit
spending?

I wonder what the impact would be if we removed the "caps" on salary for
Social Security and Medicare taxes, and added "all income" to the pool
of funds that should be taxable for purposes of Social Security,
Medicare, and a national health insurance program.

The medicare tax is not capped. The SS tax cap goes up every year


I stand partially corrected. Remove the SS cap. Apply the taxes against
ALL income. Better?