"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


snip?

Ed said

It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new
technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of
opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length,
is
that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards
and
expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we
use
it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more;
we're
under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still
more.

--
Ed Huntress

No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his
shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if
he
didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong.
That
probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least.

Yup. We have it, so we use it.

That sort of thing happens all the time
but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred.

That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is
trivial.

But I
have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff.
The
prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is
no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room
is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons.

Yet, many hospitals are going broke.

Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see
what's
actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind
alley of delusion.

You take someone
with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who
need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a
big
time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for.
What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the
people who aren't covered by insurance.

That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk.


That and the needless duplication,
profit, and administrative waste.

Speculation on your part. Do you have the data?

The bottom line is that what's happening
now can't be sustained.

True.

We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.

Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice
is a no-brainer.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


snip?

Ed said

It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new
technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of
opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some
length,
is
that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards
and
expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so
we
use
it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more;
we're
under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it
still
more.

--
Ed Huntress

No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his
shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if
he
didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong.
That
probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least.

Yup. We have it, so we use it.

That sort of thing happens all the time
but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred.

That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is
trivial.

But I
have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff.
The
prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is
no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room
is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons.

Yet, many hospitals are going broke.

Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see
what's
actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind
alley of delusion.

You take someone
with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people
who
need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a
big
time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for.
What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for
the
people who aren't covered by insurance.

That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk.


That and the needless duplication,
profit, and administrative waste.

Speculation on your part. Do you have the data?

The bottom line is that what's happening
now can't be sustained.

True.

We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.

Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to
fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame
all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You
have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the
minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making
profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system
to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the
other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will
work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they
could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations.
But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries
can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have
a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse.
So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice
is a no-brainer.

Hawke

As for assuring that everyone has health care, I agree, a single-payer
system is the only way. But don't count on it reducing costs. For that, we
need to make some hard decisions and set new priorities for health care in
general.

The problem is immensely complex, and it would only be misleading to try to
discuss it here. I've spent tens of hours with people at work on this
subject, people who are bona fide experts with decades of experience, and I
have some opinions on it as a result of those discussions. But it's not for
here.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snipped
We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.
Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice
is a no-brainer.


Keep it simple.

Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920
with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the
information needed to understand why costs are up.

If you reply I expect to see the money differences.

If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest
house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be
be customer safety, technology and regulations.



Hawke




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"strabo" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snipped
We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.
Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to
fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame
all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain.
You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You
have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the
minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making
profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to
the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system
to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the
other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will
work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and
none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they
could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations.
But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the
government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries
can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy.
We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than
the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can
have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse.
So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that
choice
is a no-brainer.


Keep it simple.

Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920
with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the
information needed to understand why costs are up.

my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder...


If you reply I expect to see the money differences.

If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest
house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be
be customer safety, technology and regulations.

Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety,
better technology, and tighter regulations.

You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone
age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who
would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference
between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part
about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more
important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives
that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into
something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity.

It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot
cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will
you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money?
If not, then how much are you willing to pay?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 22, 9:00*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message

...



Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote in message
.. .
snipped
We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.
Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress

The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to
fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame
all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain.
You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You
have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the
minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making
profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to
the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system
to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the
other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will
work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and
none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they
could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations.
But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the
government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries
can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy..
We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than
the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can
have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse.
So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that
choice
is a no-brainer.

Keep it simple.

Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920
with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the
information needed to understand why costs are up.

my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder...



If you reply I expect to see the money differences.

If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest
house costing $150,000 *would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be
be customer safety, technology and regulations.

Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety,
better technology, and tighter regulations.

You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone
age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who
would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference
between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part
about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more
important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives
that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into
something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity.

It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot
cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will
you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money?
If not, then how much are you willing to pay?

--
Ed Huntress

Did you walk to school or carry your lunch?