Re: OT: Fun with statistics
- From: Scotty <nobody@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:47:15 +0200
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:02:57 -0700 (PDT), The Phantom Piper
On Mar 25, 12:51 pm, Val <dzq...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We could perhaps get some short term cost
reduction by cutting government salaries?
The major Cost Reduction for Medicare would be
to eliminate the Profit Overhead (salaries, inflated
operating costs, and of course profit) from the layer
between a doctor and a patient - ie: the Insurance
Corporations and HMOs.
The next major Cost Reduction will be to implement
strict Price Levels for all procedures, as Al Gore was
proposing when Hillary Clinton set him on it during her
attempt to put through a 'Health Security Card' for all
US citizens. If Hospital 'A' is making a profit charging
$5,000 for Procedure 'X' and Hospital 'B' less than ten
miles away is charging $15,000, then it's pretty clear
that Hospital 'B' is either mismanaged or is gouging.
Finally, with regard to both Health Care *and* Social
Security, the tax structure in this nation needs to be
fairer to the Working Poor and Middle Class by finally
charging Corporations their fair share (no more of the
Sweetheart Deals and Exemptions from government
slid in by legislators bribed by Lobbyists) and making
the wealthy be Responsible Citizens instead of acting
like Feudal Lords.
Implement those three policies and you will find that
there are _plenty_ of dollars available to pay for both
Social Security and Medical Care for ALL Americans.
Not Holding My Breath,
The Phantom Piper
Another typical, worthless rant.
I would seriously suggest that you watch this round-table debate:
"Meeting of the Minds", "The healthcare debate", on CNBC, recorded before
the present bill was passed.
Bios' of the participants here:
And the video is here:
My take-out was:
"70% of healthcare costs are lifestyle related".
"If the average weight of Americans simply returned to early 1990s levels,
the reduction in chronic-disease costs would boost our economy annually by
an estimated $1 trillion at no cost to the government."
That would half the cost of "healthcare" and bring the cost down to the
level of France and probably with better outcomes.
There would be no need to soak the rich to pay for the irresponsible
behavior of the others.
If your BMI is higher than <insert your choice here> then there should be a
penalty. If you drive your car so that you have ten accidents per month
your MV insurance premiums will go up, same story...
Senator Granholm thinks that the cost could be reduced if Pharmaceutical
Companies cut down on excessive TV advertising, which just reflects the
intellectual capacity of Congress and yours. (but then she is a Canuck :-))
Angela F. Braly
"When the government inserts itself into the private marketplace, there are
unintended consequences. Ultimately it will reduce consumer choice and it
will challenge the very drivers around health care value and innovation".
Increasing taxes just reduces the competitiveness of the US and price
fixing just slows down the development of new drugs and the microbes are
And in the mega page Bill, there are bound to be unforeseen, unintended and
"We need to encourage our political leaders to fix what is broken, but we
also need to make sure we don't break what still works".
Another good watch is "Rebuilding the US" also a CNBC production.
"Green-Left Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it
everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
-With apologies to Groucho Marx
- Prev by Date: Re: Scottish News Consortium selected to produce Scottish news for STV
- Next by Date: Re: Scottish News Consortium selected to produce Scottish news for STV
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Fun with statistics
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Fun with statistics