[greekfire]

I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?

[greekfire]

I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?

[greekfire]

I do not intend to discount the many fine arguments that have been made up to this point. Caloric intake of different individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds is well and fine and something to take into consideration, but it misses the main thrust of this thread’s over-arching question: Is healthcare a right or a good?

[greekfire]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“The seeds of revolution are sewn when the bankers and rulers have the masses by the short and curlies and there’s no way for them to get out of it without incurring some sort of loss…like right now.”

[greekfire]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“The seeds of revolution are sewn when the bankers and rulers have the masses by the short and curlies and there’s no way for them to get out of it without incurring some sort of loss…like right now.”

[greekfire]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“The seeds of revolution are sewn when the bankers and rulers have the masses by the short and curlies and there’s no way for them to get out of it without incurring some sort of loss…like right now.”

[greekfire]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“The seeds of revolution are sewn when the bankers and rulers have the masses by the short and curlies and there’s no way for them to get out of it without incurring some sort of loss…like right now.”

[greekfire]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“The seeds of revolution are sewn when the bankers and rulers have the masses by the short and curlies and there’s no way for them to get out of it without incurring some sort of loss…like right now.”

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=DaveLJ]An anecdote to make an observation on the health care issue:

My parents both died of very rare (completely unrelated) cancers (that fortunately do not get passed on through the genes so far as anyone can tell). My father died of a glioblastoma brain tumor (like Ted Kennedy) and my mother of pancreatic cancer (like Patrick Swayze).

Forty years ago, they would have been diagnosed and been dead within a few months. There were no surgeries that had been developed yet to buy more time. So, the total cost of these two diseases to The System was fairly low. Diagnosis, some drugs, hospice, and you die after a few months.

Fast forward to the 00s and both my mom and dad had one surgery each that probably extended their lives by about a year in each case. I don’t know what my father’s care cost, but my mom told me she sat down and added up the various bills one time (she was covered by Medicare) and it was in excess of $280,000. I’ve gotta believe that my father’s care cost at least that much given the nature of his surgeries, etc. So, all told, $600,000 probably added a year each to two peoples’ lives.

Now, as a son, I’m glad they each got that extra year. But from a societal standpoint, this is a waste of money. In extremis. So, until someone decides when too much is too much, technology will march forward and costs will continue to escalate.

85%+ of our population could live their entire lives with 1970s-quality medical care. At 1970s prices. But that fraction of the population that has problems that were essentially uncureable 40 years ago account for the vast majority of the escalation in overall health care costs. Between Medicare and the Insurance Complex, we’ve lost the ability to say, “no.”

No one wants to acknowledge that until we decide what kind of high-end care will be rationed (as in the case of my parents), then NOTHING will change. In Canada and the UK, care is rationed – it’s that simple. My mother’s surgery would not have been done in Canada. My father’s would have because he would have had private insurance outside the system. But, my point is… again… that there’s no free lunch. No one wants to say the obvious: Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.[/quote]

DaveLJ:
I sympathize with your personal experience with healthcare. I have also lost many members of my immediate family to cancer and know firsthand that it is not a fun thing to deal with.

I have appreciated your posts over the years, but I couldn’t help but notice, in this latest thread, that you made the assertion that improvements in healthcare technology equated to an increase in prices. Please let me better understand your logic behind this assertion as I was under the impression that improvements in technology generally equated to a decrease in prices.

Another area of your logic that I question is the point at which prices of healthcare will decrease. You mentioned at the tail end of your last post that “Costs will escalate until care is rationed at the high (cost) end.” I read that to mean that the cost of healthcare at the high end will decrease if it is rationed, or reduced.

My question to you is would not a rationing (decrease) in the supply of healthcare at the high (cost) end lead to an increase in prices rather than a decrease, based upon the simple law of supply and demand?

[greekfire]

[quote=sdrealtor]A “free open market” sale probably could have gotten a tad more.[/quote]

sdr – I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit inside when I read that line. The words “free open market” are laughable in real estate, and is probably why you put it in quotations in the first place.

[greekfire]

[quote=sdrealtor]A “free open market” sale probably could have gotten a tad more.[/quote]

sdr – I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit inside when I read that line. The words “free open market” are laughable in real estate, and is probably why you put it in quotations in the first place.

[Author]

Posts