Re: HSA's a Shot in the Arm

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:41:50 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u4edu19pgo7lgmlmr6k18elc7aj5qc36m4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:03:26 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:umhcu1dqnvbj5n9jvvt94ic6buc7hs4v5j@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:28:42 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i4tau1114hcp6pe78g49qbvlduv055nc99@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:50:19 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:41:56 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


You do not seem to understand why I am making the argument I am
making.
If
the trend does not change, someone else is going to pay a higher and
higher
price for this benefit. If this trend continues, more and more
people
will
find that they will not get that free care that we are offering
because
the
government and instiutions cannot fully fund the care they promised
to
deliver, and soooner or later, they will resort to more rationing to
contain
the cost increase. There is no free lunch....

Neither your nor I know how the medical scenario will play out.
My best guess is that a lot of half measures will be tried, but
eventually the U.S. will have some kind of national health insurance
which will be compulsory in that everyone who will pay for it through
some kind of tax. Probably much as taxation now is arranged -- the
less well to do will pay less than the well to do but everyone will
pay. The countries that have such systems have more control over
medical costs because they negotiate with drug companies, for one
thing. And the costs have not gone up in nations with this kind of
system as steeply as they have in the U.S.

The alternative would be for Americans to settle for a quality of
medical care less than other industrialized nations, and although
some may be willing to do that most will not. So we'll have
univeral coverage and pay what it takes.

This won't come overnight and we will experiment with medical savings
accounts and so forth but find they fall short of providing a system
that provides for all an acceptable level of care. Some of us, by
virtue of age or employment or just being rich, have no worries now
but sizeable numbers of our citizens do.

Since medical care promises extension of life, and not death as wars
do I am willing to have tax dollars used for this purpose. I can
think of dozens of things tax dollars are used for that could be
eliminated so as to pay for health care. I'm sure everyone can
come up with a list.

It is a matter of values, of what kind of nation we want to be. We
are a wealthy nation and we can make choices.

But so long as you are willing to accept what the system gives you,
I think it would be a good idea to simply say you are grateful that
some in Washington have seen their way to passing legislation that
provides you with quality health care you can afford. And stop
kvetching about the future, which you have no control over and will
not be around to see.




I saw Hillary on TV on a panel where one of the
implementers of the Bush debacle was defending that
system, and an opponent was agreeing that some things
would get better but more things would never get better
under that system. Hillary's turn came, and she said the
best thing to do would be to scrap it and start over.
What was running through my mind, of course, was how
superior her system in the 1990's would have been if it
had been accepted, and how much better it would still
be than the horrible mess that's being implemented with
the all-too-familiar staggering ineptitude now.



gee, this is like having a conversation with a wall. NO, her plan would
not
have been better, it would have made things worse. She wanted some sort
of
univeral health care. That is going in the wrong direction. That would
guarantee that health care inflation would continue to outpace the
overall
inflation rate....



We disagree, completely. The US, without universal health
care, has just about the most expensive healthcare in the world.
There's inflation yes, worldwide, but the US routinely continues
to have just about the most expensive healthcare in the world.
Inflation is certainly alarming, but bears only proportionately,
not absolutely, on the fact that the US routinely continues to
have just about the most expensive healthcare in the world.

You can disagree all you want, you cannot argue against the facts. The
facts are that every country who has resorted to some form of third party
payment system where the use of the system is widespread, healthcare as a
percentage of GDP is increasing. The facts are that every country who has
resorted to some form of third party payment system has seen medical
inflation rise at a rate faster than their overall rate of inflation. The
facts are that every country who has gone to such a system has had to
ration
healthcare, and that trend is increasing, i.e. more and more people are
being rationed out of the ability to get that healthcare when they think
they need it or want it....



What did I say that disagreed with that? My paragraph was
about the COST of healthcare in the USA versus other countries,
all of which, INCLUDING THE USA, have a third party
system, as you have previously agreed after I applied sufficient
force to the tooth extraction tool.

Because it does not really matter. If you can reduce the cost to exactly
the same as every other country that has moved to a third party payment
system, you will still be faced with the simple fact the medical inflation
in each and every one of these countries are growing faster than their
overall inflation rate.



Hey Jerry, send me $10,000. I'll buy an i-bond and get 6%
interest and send you back half the interest. You'll be happy,
because 3% of the interest on $10,000 is the interest you'd be
getting if you bought a $5,000 i-bond anyway. After, the rate
of increase, not the base cost, is the only thing that matters.
Heck, I'll even mail you back 4% of what you'd have made
on $5,000, so you'll be making even 33% more! Do we have
a deal? Check it out carefully, the same way you compute
medical costs based only on the rate of increase with no
regard to the base cost, since the base cost doesn't matter
at all. You'll see you you'd be a fool to pass up the super
deal I'm offering! You'll be chuckling all the way to the bank!
Don't miss out!












.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dimwitted Bush states that everyone has healthcare: "you can just go to the emergency room"
    ... bizarre ideas about healthcare. ... great way of providing medical care for poor people?" ... tests or medications or seeing a specialist. ... cost of that patient per year. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Why is number without health insurance increasing?
    ... care. ... One thing I think gets forgotten in this discussion is that healthcare is not a car assembly line, ... Not even HMO's get the economy of scale that you speak of. ... But much of what has been discussed here is not really access to care issues but rather cost issues. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Commentary: US health costs out of control
    ... Perhaps, we should just refuse to treat people who cannot pay, and hope they can pay the burial expenses. ... However, the idea that preventative medicine will aid our health care cost ills has been debunked in two separate studies. ... How much does an insurance company spend on all ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... cost, ... can bet health care would be a lot less. ... I understand that you pay outrageous fees to use expensive ... provide health insurance to 200,000 people for a whole year. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... cost, ... can bet health care would be a lot less. ... I understand that you pay outrageous fees to use expensive ... provide health insurance to 200,000 people for a whole year. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)