Shadow inventory finally being released ?

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[briansd1]

[quote=njtosd]
With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.[/quote]

Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?

[briansd1]

[quote=njtosd]
With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.[/quote]

Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?

[briansd1]

[quote=njtosd]
With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.[/quote]

Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?

[briansd1]

[quote=njtosd]
With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.[/quote]

Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?

[briansd1]

[quote=njtosd]
With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.[/quote]

Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?[/quote]

It would probably be better from an economic standpoint to eliminate those who are ill or even those who carry bad genes. Fortunately, society (usually) weighs other non-economic factors, such as human rights, in this arena.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?[/quote]

It would probably be better from an economic standpoint to eliminate those who are ill or even those who carry bad genes. Fortunately, society (usually) weighs other non-economic factors, such as human rights, in this arena.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?[/quote]

It would probably be better from an economic standpoint to eliminate those who are ill or even those who carry bad genes. Fortunately, society (usually) weighs other non-economic factors, such as human rights, in this arena.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?[/quote]

It would probably be better from an economic standpoint to eliminate those who are ill or even those who carry bad genes. Fortunately, society (usually) weighs other non-economic factors, such as human rights, in this arena.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
Dave said that the unhealthy who don’t directly pay for their health care services have benefited.

The healthy, who don’t use services, pay high premiums and get nothing in return.

From an economic and cost standpoint, do we want sick people living longer and reproducing, creating more sick offsprings?[/quote]

It would probably be better from an economic standpoint to eliminate those who are ill or even those who carry bad genes. Fortunately, society (usually) weighs other non-economic factors, such as human rights, in this arena.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj] In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). ….And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. [/quote]

Not that it would likely change your conclusion any, but then numbers are about $6,000 for in-state tuition and fees at SDSU for the current academic year and about $11,500 for UCSD.

SDSU is still a great deal. The UC’s are no longer on the low side of public universities, but still a great deal for the quality of education.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj] In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). ….And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. [/quote]

Not that it would likely change your conclusion any, but then numbers are about $6,000 for in-state tuition and fees at SDSU for the current academic year and about $11,500 for UCSD.

SDSU is still a great deal. The UC’s are no longer on the low side of public universities, but still a great deal for the quality of education.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj] In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). ….And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. [/quote]

Not that it would likely change your conclusion any, but then numbers are about $6,000 for in-state tuition and fees at SDSU for the current academic year and about $11,500 for UCSD.

SDSU is still a great deal. The UC’s are no longer on the low side of public universities, but still a great deal for the quality of education.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj] In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). ….And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. [/quote]

Not that it would likely change your conclusion any, but then numbers are about $6,000 for in-state tuition and fees at SDSU for the current academic year and about $11,500 for UCSD.

SDSU is still a great deal. The UC’s are no longer on the low side of public universities, but still a great deal for the quality of education.

[Author]

Posts