Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~)

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Which is a big reason why some (including some who do not get health > insurance through their employers and cannot afford to purchase it > themselves) are so leery of putting the government in charge (either > dire

Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))

At 08:55 AM Saturday 11/1/2008, John Williams wrote: >Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If not government, then what can be brought to bear to counteract the > > tendency of human beings to be bad actors? > >I think there is a greater chance that God will make us better people than >that t

Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If not government, then what can be brought to bear to counteract the > tendency of human beings to be bad actors? I think there is a greater chance that God will make us better people than that the government will. > The health system we have today is brok

Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))

Ronn! Blankenship said the following on 11/1/2008 12:24 AM: > At 11:05 AM Friday 10/31/2008, John Williams wrote: >> Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to >>> manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain wit

Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~)

At 11:05 AM Friday 10/31/2008, John Williams wrote: >Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > John Williams wrote: > > > there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. > > > You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. > >By no means is everyone a rational actor. People ma

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What about a system made up of a number of member states with various > constitutions, with a higher federal level above consisting of a > representative from each of the 13 member states. Nice start, but why only 13 member states? :-) > The federal level wou

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

- Original Message - From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~) > Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How does the "smaller & cheaper" political system work? Badly, but less so. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

- Original Message - From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~) > Wayne Eddy <[EMA

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Smaller and cheaper. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Oct 31, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: > Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Replace our election system with a lottery, and just draft our leaders? Not sure that wouldn't be better, given the notably dodgy integrity of our current (pre- and post-HAVA) electio

Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

- Original Message - From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~) > Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM, John Williamswrote: > > Now you only need to name 521 more people with that > > kind of spending power to match Congress. If you can do that, then > > we can talk about hundreds of state legislators and county supervisors. > At

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Companies aren't allowed to spend their revenue??? What do they have to do > with it, put it under the mattress? They must use most of it to fund continuing operations which are necessary for next year's profit. The only continuing operations of the government

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > The Federal budget is not equivalent to corporate revenue. The corporation > is only free to spend the profits, unless they want to go bankrupt quickly. > Companies aren't allowed to spend their revenue??? What do they

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You want to compare one organization's profits to > another organization's revenue!!! The Federal budget is not equivalent to corporate revenue. The corporation is only free to spend the profits, unless they want to go bankrupt quickly. And the corporations are s

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > You could just as easily say that the CEO of > > General Motors spends $172 billion all by himself. > > That is ridiculous. GM's average annual profit over 1998 to 2004 (about > a S

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You could just as easily say that the CEO of > General Motors spends $172 billion all by himself. That is ridiculous. GM's average annual profit over 1998 to 2004 (about a Senate term) was $3.2 billion (they lost money the past 4 years). There are 14 people on

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:13 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Another example is Congress. It looks likely that the Federal government > will spend more than $4 trillion this year. That comes to about > $7,500,000,000.00 per congressperson in one year. And very likely > about the s

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I dropped out of most of these when one > conversation reached the point of suggesting that government > regulation, and not the 1920's equivalent of particularly clueless day > traders, caused the Great Depression. I don't blame you. It can be devastat

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what > should replace government regulation. I'll answer that if you answer my question: How can I predict what the stock market will do over the next year?

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > tired of the repetition of one answer to every problem, because some > things are just not nails. Government regulations are definitely not nails. Ticking time bombs would be a better metaphor. ___ http:/

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: > >> I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about >> what >> should replace government regulation. If you want to have a >> conversation about what can/should be used in

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: > I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about > what > should replace government regulation. If you want to have a > conversation about what can/should be used instead of government > regulation, let's do it. Otherwise

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

John Williams wrote: > Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> What's different between the ability of government actors >> to make "large" mistakes vs. the ability of private actors to make >> "large" mistakes? > > Government legally requires actors to behave in certain ways. Private > actors mu

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Scale-wise, it seems to me that there are several > sets of private actors that can generate errors as large or larger than > the government can or has. Another example is Congress. It looks likely that the Federal government will spend more than $4 trillion t

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Scale-wise, it seems to me that there are several > sets of private actors that can generate errors as large or larger than > the government can or has. What private actor can control $1 trillion dollars in bailouts? Even on a local level, look at the vast amo

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What's different between the ability of government actors > to make "large" mistakes vs. the ability of private actors to make > "large" mistakes? Government legally requires actors to behave in certain ways. Private actors must use more subtle means. > John,

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

John Williams wrote: > Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> John Williams wrote: >>> there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. > >> You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. > > By no means is everyone a rational actor. People make mistakes, act > emotionall

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John Williams wrote: > > there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. > You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. By no means is everyone a rational actor. People make mistakes, act emotionally instead of rationally, and generall

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

John Williams wrote: > It is obvious that no system is perfect. No matter whether it is a > centrally controlled system, or a completely decentralized system, > there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. > I'd rather have a fault-tolerant system that tends to evolve toward

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all week)

At 06:39 PM Thursday 10/30/2008, John Williams wrote: >Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Some rules, of course, if the aim is universal health care. That doesn't > > make the government the provider or administrator of the service. > >If all the money h

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I dunno. I didn't even know that I thought that. If you are concerned about chaotic effects in a complicated system with coordination between the elements, then why do you think government control will result in less instability if you don't think it will have

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:11 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Why do you think the coordination will be greater with an decentralized > system than with government control? I dunno. I didn't even know that I thought that. Nick ___ http

Single payer health care

> While I think innovation is lovely, > there is another evolution you may > not be aware of - Community based > research networks. Instead of one > group doing research over time with > relatively slow advances, groups work > collaboratively. The great example > is the 6ish cancer research

Re: Health Care costs (same F-ing topic all damn week)

Jon wrote It will create > a system devoid of the give and take of consumers shopping > around trying > to find the best supplier for what they need at the best > price, and suppliers > competing and innovating to provide the consumers what they > need. Instead > the government will over

Re: Single payer health care

Hi there, Behind on email, but resurfacing for a bit to see if we can perhaps accomplish in a few posts what we went through in a semester class on healthcare delivery. For quite a few of us, the Aussie system was a favorite/great compromise. The systems for many countries are often "lu

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No. Not when they influence each other. You referred to emergence, but > there are no emergent properties when decisions "average out." But in > reality, such networks of decisions always have emergent properties. Why do you think the coordination will be gre

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Thousands of small decisions don't just average out. They can > > produce wild behavior that is inherently unpredictable. > > If they are coordinated, sure. That's what central control does. If > the decisions are unco

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Even simple Boolean > networks produce behaviors that I wouldn't want to trust with my health > care! Even well-intentioned father figures can make decisions that I wouldn't want to trust with my health care. I trust myself, and a s

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

h the mathematics of complexity. Perhaps not. Even simple Boolean networks produce behaviors that I wouldn't want to trust with my health care! Thousands of small decisions don't just average out. They can produce wild behavior that is inherently unpredictable. They can cycle among a

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

the system will continue unabated. And as a bonus, the decentralized system is effectively a massively parallel set of experiments that, through trial and error, can result in evolution towards a more efficient system. > I certainly wouldn't want trust our health > care system to avoid

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

what they'll do. We certainly know that complex systems of the kind you describe tend to be chaotic, with unpredictable attractor states. I certainly wouldn't want trust our health care system to avoid extrema and attractors that would be unfair to the vulnerable among us. Nick _

Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > any idea why that is? Human nature, I guess. Many people think that they know more than they do, and therefore believe that they can design (or fix) an extremely complicated system when there is really no chance to do so. People don't trust an emergent system,

Health Care costs (same F-ing topic all damn week)

> These rules will constrain both the suppliers and the > consumers, and will > effectively result in inefficient government control of > health care. It will create > a system devoid of the give and take of consumers shopping > around trying > to find the best supplier for

Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

> > Which is why Obama's plan doesn't try to > replace that knowledge, > Of course the plan doesn't STATE that it will do so. > But every time the > government bureaucracy gets involved in a system, a > complicated set of > rules and regulations begins accreting in a vain and > ultimately doome

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Which is why Obama's plan doesn't try to replace that knowledge, Of course the plan doesn't STATE that it will do so. But every time the government bureaucracy gets involved in a system, a complicated set of rules and regulations begins accreting in a vain and

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > There is no way for the government to replace the specific knowledge and > time > of millions of consumers and thousands of suppliers individually > interacting in > order to continuously evolve a system that meets the ne

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Some rules, of course, if the aim is universal health care. That doesn't > make the government the provider or administrator of the service. If all the money has to go through the government, it is inevitable that a large and complicated set

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:11 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Did somebody propose a centrally administered and controlled health care > > system? > > Yes. > > > (who smells straw) > > Could be

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Ronn! Blankenship < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Did somebody propose a centrally administered and controlled health care > >system? > > > "co-president" Hillary did, IIRC. Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_he

Geography troll [was: Single payer health care]

>> Again.. *points to Holland's system* > > of course, holland, and other western countries, (...) The name of the country is "The Netherlands". Holland is one part of it, which, unfortunately, has permeated western languages as the name of the whole country. In Portuguese, it's even awful. We

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Did somebody propose a centrally administered and controlled health care > system? Yes. > (who smells straw) Could be a chronic medical condition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

At 12:40 AM Thursday 10/30/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: >On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:26 PM, John Williams ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > A big health care system is much like a big economy, there is > > no way that it can be administered and centrally controlled &

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:26 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > A big health care system is much like a big economy, there is > no way that it can be administered and centrally controlled > efficiently. Did somebody propose a centrally administered and controlled

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >In 1933 passim regulations were enacted > to prevent the problems that started the Great Depression. And what was a stock market correction turned into a 10 year disaster as a result of misguided government policy. > but the first major banking problem, t

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

John Williams wrote: > Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> As it is, it would seem from recent events, with private industry. >> > > When the government interferes, definitely. > Hmmm...Let's look at the record. In 1933 passim regulations were enacted to prevent the problems that s

Single payer health care

Again.. *points to Holland's system* > AndrewC of course, holland, and other western countries, are way ahead of america, andrew. i am not talking about "change", simply for change's sake. what would be detrimental rather than beneficial is mc cain's proposal for &qu

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One that would become much simpler with a single payer. A big health care system is much like a big economy, there is no way that it can be administered and centrally controlled efficiently. In that sense, a single payer system is not simple by

Re: Single payer health care

Andrew Crystall wrote: > And with something like a single payer system, the track record isn't > good. Again.. *points to Holland's system* > Which parts of the single payer system exhibit this bad track record you refer to? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

John Williams wrote: > If the participants are chosen randomly. Not so if the additional > participant is a high risk of an expensive health problem. Health > insurance is an extraordinarily complicated problem. One that would become much simpler with a single payer. >> Assuming your actuaries

Re: Single payer health care

At 10:44 AM Wednesday 10/29/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:23 AM, John Williams wrote: > > > Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> At the very least, put actual practicing MD's in charge of the > >> medical > >> decisions to cover or not cover treatment, and hold them account

Re: Single payer health care

At 09:51 AM Wednesday 10/29/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >"A city built on rock 'n roll would be structurally unsound." -- Julie Maier More so than one built on a major earthquake fault or a coastal city built below sea level? . . . ronn! :) ___

Re: Single payer health care

in the world. > > > > > No, we have examples here of things where there is no > > > competition or > > > they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay the > > > bill, > > > like the ones I listed. (Nothing to do with R&D but > > >

Re: Single payer health care

there is no competition or >>> they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay the bill, >>> like the ones I listed. (Nothing to do with R&D but with simply >>> getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get one-size-fits-all >>> health care, how

Re: Single payer health care

; > they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay the > > bill, > > like the ones I listed. (Nothing to do with R&D but > > with simply > > getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get > > one-size-fits-all > > health care, how do we ins

Re: Single payer health care

do with R&D but > with simply > getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get > one-size-fits-all > health care, how do we insure that it does not degrade like > many other things already have? > . . . ronn! :) true enough, that's another reason why health care deli

Re: Single payer health care

ically proven best practices is necessary in order to allocate health care spending most efficiently. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Single payer health care

On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote: >> And it would be a vast improvement over anonymous bean >> counters arbitrarily denying care because it might actually cost >> money. > > A vast increase in costs, definitely. In quality? Probably not. A > large > amount of health spending i

Re: Single payer health care

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > And it would be a vast improvement over anonymous bean > counters arbitrarily denying care because it might actually cost money. A vast increase in costs, definitely. In quality? Probably not. A large amount of health spending in the US is for expensive dia

Re: Single payer health care

On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:23 AM, John Williams wrote: > Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> At the very least, put actual practicing MD's in charge of the >> medical >> decisions to cover or not cover treatment, and hold them accountable >> for permanent health consequences if they dodge covering

Re: Single payer health care

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At the very least, put actual practicing MD's in charge of the medical > decisions to cover or not cover treatment, and hold them accountable > for permanent health consequences if they dodge covering a treatment > that turns out to have been medically n

Re: Single payer health care

ility to pay the bill, >> like the ones I listed. (Nothing to do with R&D but with simply >> getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get one-size-fits-all >> health care, how do we insure that it does not degrade like many >> other things already have? > >

Re: Single payer health care

h R&D but with simply > getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get one-size-fits-all > health care, how do we insure that it does not degrade like many > other things already have? Let them eat cake? TINSTAAFL. Some people lose when an unfa

Re: Single payer health care

R&D but with simply getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get one-size-fits-all health care, how do we insure that it does not degrade like many other things already have? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Single payer health care

> How do we prevent such a system from > degenerating to the lowest quality of > service it possibly can get away with? > . . . ronn! :) we should not assume that will happen because some nations with national health can't afford the kind of R&D available in the richest country in the world.

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On 28 Oct 2008 at 13:18, John Williams wrote: > Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The larger the pool of participants in a health plan, the smaller > > the cost to each participant in that pool. > > If the participants are chosen randomly. Not so if the additional > participant is a high

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

On 28 Oct 2008 at 16:05, Jim Sharkey wrote: > Dave Land wrote: > > >On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote: > > >> Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health > >> care while you should only contribute a small amount, even

Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The larger the pool of participants in a health plan, the smaller > the cost to each participant in that pool. If the participants are chosen randomly. Not so if the additional participant is a high risk of an expensive health problem. Health insurance is an ext

Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)

Dave Land wrote: >On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote: >> Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health >> care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though >> you could contribute much more? >This is *precisely

Is Robin Hanson right about harmful health care?

'The Checklist: If something so simple can transform intensive care, what else can it do?' "This is the reality of intensive care: at any point, we are as apt to harm as we are to heal. Line infections are so co

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: U.S. health care > >Well, it would put the small pharm out of business too.

RE: U.S. health care

At 01:02 PM Wednesday 7/18/2007, Dan Minette wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:53 PM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Re: U.S.

RE: U.S. health care

On 18 Jul 2007 at 13:02, Dan Minette wrote: > That's just one example of the complexity of the problem, there are a score. > There is no flip solution to the problems with the US health care system. The problem that allways strikes me is the American healthcare system is desi

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:53 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: U.S. health care > 'm not sure you have an adequate picture of the US syste

RE: U.S. health care

; > he had a massive heart attack. > >And, without large, statistically significant studies we won't know if that >is a coincidence. > > > the fact there is little interest in new research on vaccines because > > it doesn't pay, yet any new drug for ed is a

Re: U.S. health care

At 10:53 PM Friday 7/13/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 14/07/2007, at 4:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> > > > >> That assumes you keep providing care the way you do. > >> > >> Increase preventative medicine and primary nursing, and you reduce > >> other healthcare threefold. > > > > How? > >...bec

Re: U.S. health care

On 14/07/2007, at 4:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> > >> That assumes you keep providing care the way you do. >> >> Increase preventative medicine and primary nursing, and you reduce >> other healthcare threefold. > > How? ...because hospital stays reduce and recovery times increase. Good prevent

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:26 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: U.S. health care > > dan, are you certain only 15% of americans lack health care

RE: U.S. health care

> Lobbies do have an influence in Congress, and changes that they oppose are > often beneficial. However, getting rid of the lobbies does not get rid of > the fundamentals of the problem. If you take the profitability out of > drug > development by private companies, you will stop private drug d

RE: U.S. health care

act there is little interest in new research on vaccines because > it doesn't pay, yet any new drug for ed is a great investment, make me > wonder if capitalism is the right incentive for health care? this is > what "sicko" points out... There are a couple of obvious conc

U.S. health care

new research on vaccines because it doesn't pay, yet any new drug for ed is a great investment, make me wonder if capitalism is the right incentive for health care? this is what "sicko" points out... i have no problem with cheap third world drugs flooding the market and putting big p

U.S. health care

dan, are you certain only 15% of americans lack health care coverage? i agree that this does not represent the majority of health care costs. do you believe a single payer system would reduce costs effectively? http://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php i agree

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:23 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: U.S. health care > > > if that is the dynamic, dan, then anerica is subsidizin

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 7:55 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: U.S. health care > > That assumes you keep providing care the way you do. &g

U.S. health care

> if that is the dynamic, dan, then anerica is subsidizing the rest of > the world, which would be justice. If you are talking about Sub-Sahara Africa, and other third world countries, I would certainly favor ways of lowering the cost of drugs in those countries. But, I don't think we need to s

RE: U.S. health care

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:03 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: U.S. health care > > > it that is the dynamic, dan, then anerica is sunsidiz

Re: U.S. health care

On 13 Jul 2007, at 04:01, Dan Minette wrote: > > Governments could step in, but in countries with price > controls/negotiations...they haven't. Instead, they rely on the US > providing the profits that pay for innovation, then negotiate a > price for > themselves. It's not rock bottom, but tha

Re: U.S. health care

On 13/07/2007, at 1:01 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > of GDP. If everyone were to get the care available to those with > the very > best insurance policiesthen it would probably jump to 20% or > so...immediately (That assumes that the health care denied by > reasons of >

U.S. health care

We would, of course, lower drug prices if the government did hard line negotiating on buying large quantities of the drugs. A side effect would be to lower the potential profitability of any new drug that are developed. Developing a drug is a high risk venture... Governments could step in, but

<    1   2   3   >