billvon 3,009 #76 June 11, 2009 > Using Speakers Corner as a sampling group (go ahead, laugh), I'd say > health care in some sense or another is on a lot of minds, one way or >the other. If you can come up with a more scientific poll, I'm all ears. I'd tend to agree, but a lot of people here post more than they jump. I've taught about 1200 AFF students over the years, and followed maybe 50 of them as they've gone through the AFF program, gotten their licenses, gone on to do RW and bigways etc. They've asked me questions ranging from "do you ever think about dying?" to "what's the easiest way to get free jumps like you?" I've only gotten perhaps two questions about health insurance, and dealing with serious injuries, during that time - even though I tend to emphasize the possibility of serious injury and death more than average. For most skydivers, the first time they think about health insurance comes when they get injured or when they see a friend get injured. Friends getting injured is the time when you see some skydivers quit, because for the first time they've really thought about the possible consequences of their decisions. It would be great if there was a way to get them to think about that before they jump. If you have any ideas (other than trying to scare the piss out of them) I'd love to hear them. >Of course, as an actual taxpayer, I'd prefer to look at it as a good >system that I've already paid for versus a crappy system that I've >already paid for. I agree, and I think working towards that is a reasonable goal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #77 June 11, 2009 ***General Reply*** This is a pretty good read from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13686480&CFID=60289102&CFTOKEN=84519188So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #78 June 11, 2009 QuoteAnd the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly the time to be trying this expensive experiment. It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #79 June 11, 2009 Very well thought out with some good ideas on some of the main problems.... but I doubt there will be much malpractice reform here. I can hope, but I doubt it. It's too indoctrinated into the culture and the lawyers on Capital Hill have no desire to blame the medical-legal side of the house for any portion of the problem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #80 June 11, 2009 QuoteYou have admitted that you would not use the national healthcare system if you had an alternative available, and would instead leave such coverage to those who cannot afford anything else. That's the ideal scenario for such a system. Bill, you seem to be supporting a bare bones coverage that catches those without private options. Can you explain how your proposed system would differ from our current (Medicare/Medicaid) system?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #81 June 11, 2009 >Can you explain how your proposed system would differ from our >current (Medicare/Medicaid) system? It would actually be quite similar, just without the paperwork. Everyone is covered at a very minimal level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #82 June 11, 2009 QuoteAs you know well, the trust fund is IOUs only. Borrowing from the trust fund is a bad idea (IMO) but is hardly the fault of Social Security. QuoteYou'll need to qualify that 7% because it's horseshit … I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security. Quote… proof that it's a pyramid scheme. Social Security is not a pyramid scheme by any objective analysis. It is an insurance policy without a parasitic profit component.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #83 June 11, 2009 QuoteThen why was Algore saying we needed a 'lockbox' to 'save' SocSec? Because politicians have had a bad habit of borrowing from the SS trust fund to fund things like tax cuts for the rich.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #84 June 11, 2009 QuoteMy insurance company isn't $11,000,000,000,000 in the hole. Nor is the social security trust fund.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 June 11, 2009 QuoteNo it's not. Congress spends the excess every year. Once the current obligation is funded, Congress pisses away the rest. Not exactly. The SS funds are invested, as required to do by law.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #86 June 11, 2009 QuoteSocial Security is not a pyramid scheme by any objective analysis. It is an insurance policy without a parasitic profit component. Is that parasitic profit component just as galling to you with other businesses?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #87 June 11, 2009 Quote Very well thought out with some good ideas on some of the main problems.... but I doubt there will be much malpractice reform here. I can hope, but I doubt it. It's too indoctrinated into the culture and the lawyers on Capital Hill have no desire to blame the medical-legal side of the house for any portion of the problem As far as I understand, at least some of the malpractice suits are filed because the treatment to fix the medical error is expensive, and without such a suit the patient would have to pay for it out of pocket because the system provides no other way to recover the costs. Putting this into 'government tier' responsibility layer - because in the government doctor scenario the government is ultimately their malpractice insurer - might get rid of at least this type of lawsuits. Drug research is also a large scale problem. As far as I know, vast majority of the countries around the world does little to no drug research on their own, and just getting a free ride on research done by U.S. and Germany. This is something to decide on international level as well.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteAs you know well, the trust fund is IOUs only. Borrowing from the trust fund is a bad idea (IMO) but is hardly the fault of Social Security. Sounds like saying communism is a great notion, it just was never implemented properly. Quote QuoteYou'll need to qualify that 7% because it's horseshit … I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security. Ah, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. Check. Simple question - what are 30 year treasuries paying right now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly the time to be trying this expensive experiment. It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. Even if we accepted that they are valid models (I don't), the experiment is jumping from where we are now to where we want to go. The disruption is rather significant. If it did what we would hope, a million paper processors are out of a job almost immediately. And then there is the year by year knee jerk reactions to fix problems. This is an activity that should be done in a prosperous time. 1998 would have been great, if Clinton hadn't dragged himself into the mud with Monica. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #90 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs you know well, the trust fund is IOUs only. Borrowing from the trust fund is a bad idea (IMO) but is hardly the fault of Social Security. Sounds like saying communism is a great notion, it just was never implemented properly. Quote QuoteYou'll need to qualify that 7% because it's horseshit … I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security. Ah, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. Check. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly the time to be trying this expensive experiment. It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. And judging by them, I damn sure don't want the US following their example.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #92 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly the time to be trying this expensive experiment. It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. And judging by them, I damn sure don't want the US following their example. Judging by the practical success of the dozens of successful models around the world, we need single payer health care NOW. Why is the USA the only first world country that allows "For Profit" health care? Why is losing 30-40% of the money spent on health care to adminstrative costs and PROFIT a good thing? That 30-40% could provide a lot of health care. Say, for example, all of those retired auto workers who just lost their health care. Or the teachers that have been laid off in record numbers? The USA is the only first world country that allows citizens to go bankrupt because of medical bills. And righties don't see any problem with that at all. Rghties seem to think that the system is working fine as it is. Un kucking believeable. Borrowing a trillion dollars for a premeditated war of agression is just peachy keen. Spend money on health care = No fucking way. What the hell is wrong with you people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly the time to be trying this expensive experiment. It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. And judging by them, I damn sure don't want the US following their example. Judging by the practical success of the dozens of successful models around the world, we need single payer health care NOW. Would that be like the successful Canadian model, whose architect now says it can't pay for itself, or the successful British model where patients are left in ambulances because there's no room available to see them? QuoteRghties seem to think that the system is working fine as it is. Un kucking believeable. Borrowing a trillion dollars for a premeditated war of agression is just peachy keen. Spend money on health care = No fucking way. And the lefties have TRIPLED that with bailouts and government takeovers of private companies - you have a point, somewhere?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #94 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security. Ah, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. Check. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html Was your intent to support JCD's false claim, or to simply answer the question on rate of return? This document, which appears to be 15 years old and does not address the consequences of the upcoming program deficits, does not support the 7% number. It's projections of rate of return for different age groups in 1990 rather clearly shows the deterioration of the program. Seeing an after tax rate of 2.8-3.6% for a 25yo in 1990...certainly doesn't make me happy. I suppose if I became a bum and stopping paying into it, I could appreciate it better. I did note their suggestions for private accounts to improve fairness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #95 June 11, 2009 QuoteIs that parasitic profit component just as galling to you with other businesses? Typically, no, but it depends on the industry.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #96 June 11, 2009 QuoteAh, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. I've provided the source of info in previous threads. If you're interested, you can look them up. If you're not, that's fine, too. Whether or not you choose to do so won't affect the facts.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteAh, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. I've provided the source of info in previous threads. If you're interested, you can look them up. If you're not, that's fine, too. Whether or not you choose to do so won't affect the facts. Translated: Somewhere in my 5000 posts, I may or may not have made a claim that won't actually stand up to scrutiny, so I'm instead going to debate whether or not I made that claim. One of Kallend's trick ponies. You got nothing. You can't buy treasuries that at best have averaged 4.7% (30years - the most profitable ones from 1981 are about to expire) and get a 7% return. The era of growing numbers of payers is over, we're now in the era of growing numbers of payees. And if you increase tax rates, then you lower rate of return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #98 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Very well thought out with some good ideas on some of the main problems.... but I doubt there will be much malpractice reform here. I can hope, but I doubt it. It's too indoctrinated into the culture and the lawyers on Capital Hill have no desire to blame the medical-legal side of the house for any portion of the problem As far as I understand, at least some of the malpractice suits are filed because the treatment to fix the medical error is expensive, and without such a suit the patient would have to pay for it out of pocket because the system provides no other way to recover the costs. Putting this into 'government tier' responsibility layer - because in the government doctor scenario the government is ultimately their malpractice insurer - might get rid of at least this type of lawsuits. Drug research is also a large scale problem. As far as I know, vast majority of the countries around the world does little to no drug research on their own, and just getting a free ride on research done by U.S. and Germany. This is something to decide on international level as well. You are right. Some of the lawsuits are brought on due to true negligence and fault of the physician. And if that person has no insurance, than it would be the responsibility of the individual to cover those costs and those are valid reasons to seek legal assistance IF talking with the hospital and physician group doesn't progress.... but MANY suits are NOT due to negligence. Seriously. I know that I'm using a sample size of one, but this personal example (from a family member) is a VERY COMMON issue for physicians. My relative had a upper abdominal hernia (meaning the tissue had separated and the bowel was pooching through the upper abdomen) She is on medicaid (one of those already getting health care from the government) and had the surgery about 2 weeks ago. It was repaired. She's recovering, but she called wanting to know if I thought it was the fault of her OB/Gyn from her cesarean that was done 2.5 yrs ago.... Cesarean scar is right above the pubic bone... NOT in the upper abdomen. But people look for someone to blame... and in many cases, for someone to sue. She doesn't have a job, and searching for a job was limited by having to have the hernia repaired, so she's trying to get (extort) money from SOMEONE. It's becoming the norm to find someone to sue for money. I don't think that will change. I can't even change my family.... how could I possibly think to change the mindset of a nation? Your points on the pharmacologic research are valid too. Only thing that I would add in the defense of the international community would be to comment that A LOT of the trials are done in foreign countries, so that could be included in their assistance. They might not give monies, but that does help with testing. (reason again goes back to the paragraph above) [-and maybe I am becoming jaded... but I really do get tired of working for those that wont, for taking care of those that will not take care of themselves, for having to support other adults as I would for children. I do have some compassion. I do not want to see others in pain. And I do help to try to fix problems.... but I can't be the only one.] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 June 11, 2009 It's not just patients looking for someone to sue. Every followup visit to my orthopedist (surgical repair to shoulder after motorcycle accident) - the simple ones where they took and xray and checked my flexibility, generated a request from a Blue Shield proxy wanting to know the circumstances of my accident and the names of any potentials they could sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #100 June 11, 2009 Just an aside: does anyone know the approximate dollar cost per birth (every birth in the USA) of John Edwards?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
