Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Gulag on September 08, 2015, 05:29:20 pm
-
1.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/426f82985ae62ae9d0e2237d0578f3a5/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo5_540.jpg)
2.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/c1ffeed42ac270dc40fec5b7bef71d4c/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo8_540.jpg)
3.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/45dc9c252d389b45a2cb45f2023cbb14/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo6_540.jpg)
4.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/847e7cb7c9301c929d2603aa884faf3e/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo7_540.jpg)
5.
(https://36.media.tumblr.com/9e407a2690bf00e2f276239125be9ef0/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo3_540.jpg)
6.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/ac6d676b4209a60c8dce7d8ff1ed2b36/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo2_540.jpg)
7.
The person was injured in a bike accident and was hospitalized for three days.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/6f7ff22453086e8dc862c46a504d410a/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo4_540.jpg)
-
Wow, Gulag! Thanks again for pointing out how much America SUCKS! I can't tell you how illuminating this kind of information is. If you happen to be in America right now, you'll no doubt be leaving as soon as possible, since there couldn't be a worse place to be. If you're not in America, it's pretty obvious that you'll stay away forever and at all costs, as any rational person would.
PS: The documents you provided don't match up with the stories attached thereto.
-
If those are real... this is incredible.
Even in Japan whose health's coverage is probably only second worse after the US among developed countries, I paid only 3,500 US$ for a 3 hours long surgery with 3 hosptal nights in a private room in a first class facility in central Tokyo. That is prior to private insurance pay back and not taking into account likely tax reduction that could cover half of the premium anyway.
As a European, I already consider those Japanese price levels as being outrageously expensive... but they are 10-20 times lower than the bills shown here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
People don't realize that hospital bills are merely a starting point for negotiation.
Since the insurance companies demand discounts the prices start out absurdly high, to allow for discounts. Even the discounted rate paid by insurers is high, since those monies have to cover people who cannot afford the full fare.
Health care in the USA is essentially on a sliding scale, unfortunately in order for the scale to slide you have to a) know that it's a sliding scale and b) be prepared to negotiate, quite hard.
The whole system is essentially a gigantic make-work project at this point, with endless reams of staff pointlessly printing out data from one system and keying it into another, with bills and paperwork being filed, refiled, copied, sent, delivered, copied again, refiled, and so on. The biggest single problem with chucking it all out and doing something sensible is the massive economic hit caused by putting all these clerks on the street.
-
Reimbursement by insurance companies is usually ~ 20% of the price billed. Therefore hospitals inflate the prices 5-fold - otherwise they would go out of business fast.
-
Come to Australia. Four of the top most liveable cities. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-19/melbourne-worlds-most-liveable-city-for-the-fourth-year-running/5681014)
Canada isn't so bad too, hey LuLa.
Cheers,
-
Reimbursement by insurance companies is usually ~ 20% of the price billed. Therefore hospitals inflate the prices 5-fold - otherwise they would go out of business fast.
OK, so real cost is 20,000 US$, hospital bills 100,000 US$, insurance company pays back 20,000 US$, who pays the remaining 80,000 US$?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OK, so real cost is 20,000 US$, hospital bills 100,000 US$, insurance company pays back 20,000 US$, who pays the remaining 80,000 US$?
Nobody, it is written off.
-
4.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/847e7cb7c9301c929d2603aa884faf3e/tumblr_ntcvqbadXY1qgthdfo7_540.jpg)
That is a miracle of modern medicine. You had an allergic reaction, took Benadryl, Pepcid, and an oral steroid and can't remember the surgery at all. Wow.
-
Reimbursement by insurance companies is usually ~ 20% of the price billed. Therefore hospitals inflate the prices 5-fold - otherwise they would go out of business fast.
they do not simply pay % of the price billed, insurance companies have price per service established with the hospital in network and pay percent of that price (if in network then the hospital agrees to certain prices, regardless of what it "bills") - that may be 100% or 80/20 or 90/10, whatever - otherwise your beloved hospitals 'd inflate the price 100-fold... so the question is - why really inflate ?
-
Nobody, it is written off.
Wow... that sounds like a system fully compliant with modern accounting standards! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wow, Gulag! Thanks again for pointing out how much America SUCKS!
american medical billing does... don't behave like Fox News personality by perverting the reality
-
Jan. 29, 2015 What Consumers Should Know About Rising Health Care Costs (http://time.com/money/3684959/steven-brill-bitter-pill-consumers/)
-
Jan. 29, 2015 What Consumers Should Know About Rising Health Care Costs (http://time.com/money/3684959/steven-brill-bitter-pill-consumers/)
Interesting and nuanced article, thanks for sharing the link.
The negative side effects of the "litigation culture" are fascinating.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One of the big problems is because of the low fees paid by Medicare, many of the better doctors are opting out and will not accept their schedule payments. So older people who is the group who needs the most and best care are starting to get left behind with many so-so doctors. This is beginning to feed over to younger people as well as Obamacare kicks in. Of course, well heeled people will be able to pay the better doctors. So in the near future, there will become a two tiered system of care, something that really didn't exist before. Instead of the government helping those who truly need care and couldn't afford it, the government systems of Medicare and Obamacare now created will make overall medicare care for the country worse than before.
-
So now you are blaming the government, not the doctors. Wow, I'm glad I'm growing old in Australia. I think I used the word dysfunctional before.
Cheers,
-
Australia is the place for Americans to be.. ;)
-
Is it me, or did I miss the relevance of this thread to photography?
Oh, wait, there was Radiology mentioned on the bill, and the bills were scanned ...
Never mind, carry on.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is it me, or did I miss the relevance of this thread to photography?
Oh, wait, there was Radiology mentioned on the bill, and the bills were scanned ...
Never mind, carry on.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, it doesn't have to be related to photography: it's the Coffee Corner, a space designed to allow friendly discussions beyond the often boring matter of photography. It allows readers/contributors an opportunity of further 'getting-to-know-you' time.
IMO, that's a huge problem with the more topìc-constricted threads: they become circular, unlike real-life situations where conversation takes its natural course. You can't plan conversation; you can plan strategy and spin, though; which would attract you the more?
Rob C
-
Is it me, or did I miss the relevance of this thread to photography?
Oh, wait, there was Radiology mentioned on the bill, and the bills were scanned ...
Never mind, carry on.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, 4781 posts and you don't know what the Coffee Corner is? :(
-
Medical Insurance.
For a variety of historical/technical/legal reasons, my wife and I had private medical insurance here in Spain at the same time as we were both legally able to use the National Insurance system.
One Sunday morning, she fell and broke her hip. I took her to the local emergency centre (PAC) where she was offered an ambulance ride either to the private hospital she'd been using for previous ops, in Palma, about 60+ clicks away, or the much shorter trip to the local, public hospital in Inca. Because of the pain, she opted for the local service.
Once there, they scanned her, gave her an an operation time for a day or two ahead. As they were getting her ready, they discovered cancer had returned. The encologist said that he wasn't prepared to wait more than ten days to have her operated for the fifth time. In those ten days she was given a new hip (a German surgeon did the job) and the cancer removed.
The treatment was so good that she said we had no further need to spend so much money on private care, so we cancelled, saving two pensioners €3600 a year.
She walked out of that local hospital without a limp, without crutches or even a single stick, and an enormous smile. Six months later she was gone. On the other side, I can give you a horrific report of her lying in the operating theatre of a private hospital, and listening to an argument next door about her insurance...
In my view, life has to be divided into priorities, and the greatest of these is health. I do not find it strange to expect that any government, irrespective of colour, should be obliged to care, above everything else, for its own citizens' health.
FWIW, I would put that up right at the top of the agenda along with national defence. Foreign aid? Really? Where does that go - we have just seen another African 'president' being prosecuted for having millions in his bank accounts without any means of justification... it goes on and on. If you have to bribe to get international trade and contracts, that's the way of the world; don't pretend it's 'aid', be upfront and call the effing spade a spade. Why else would most politicians choose the job? Altruism? Yeah, right. I listen to a Louisiana music radio station most nights over the Internet; the advertisements from various politicians running for office are unbelievable on two counts: the smearing of rivals, and the clear belief in the credulousness of the presumed local audience. As for our own lot back in the UK, nothing to learn from anywhere else, and much more time to have perfected the art.
(I do not conflate state medicine with state hand-outs; don't waste your time in ad hominems and trying to make it appear so. I may report you, which would be a new departure for me, as I have a natural dislike for running to teacher's skirts.)
Rob C
-
I used to have painting lessons with Fred, a highly successful travel agent who was quite wealthy.
I've taught in inner city high schools with mainly newly arrived immigrant students.
We got along very well. Our core belief was we wanted a better life for ourselves and others.
One thing that we were in complete agreement was that governments should forget political point scoring. They should be working together to make our lives better.
Something for Americans to think about!
Cheers,
-
In my view, life has to be divided into priorities, and the greatest of these is health. I do not find it strange to expect that any government, irrespective of colour, should be obliged to care, above everything else, for its own citizens' health.
One might think that "love" is one of lifes greatest priorities, yet not one that government should care about?
Being effectively a "social democrat" by birth, I find it somewhat surprising that government health care cause so much anxiety (and downright hostility) among some, while a range of other government spending and government involvement in individuals activities cause a lot less noise. I think that it is a lot better to have authorities fix my broken leg (even if that means paying taxes rather than insurance companies), than authorities tracking my emails or spending billions of money and endless human suffering on wars based on lies or incompetence?
There is a debate over here on how to best organize things. Should roads be built by government organizations? Or should a thin layer of government arrange the finances, while subcontracting the actual work to private companies*)? Should roads be self-financing (loan the money in a bank, pay the bank by toll), if so, what is the fundamental difference between a government road and a private road? Is this primarily a question of ideology ("big state is bad", "corporations are bad"), or is it a question of merit (whatever works the best)?
In the case of health, it seems that other countries get more health for less spending than the US**). From a superficial (non-economer, non-politician) view, this might cause US people to instantly copy whatever system is deemed to work the best. As this kind of pragmatism does not seem to be as popular as one might think, I wonder what is the real "drive" behind things.
Rather than criticize a system that I have only superficial knowledge about, I'd offer my view on how e.g. unions argue for a larger state over here. One of the most popular slogans is "a call for bid on grandmother". In this lies a deep mistrust for how commercial actors would rationalize care for our parents (do as little as possible for as much as possible), while the prevalent system of government care supposedly is rooted in a real care about the elderly. Interestingly, this view only center on the organization doing the care, no-one suggests that the individual nurses etc should do their services for free (rather, these employees should be paid more for the effort they are doing). Thus, one might suspect that these arguments and slogans (that resonate well with a large number of voters) are really about securing the jobs and pay for healthcare personell, which may well be sensible and the right thing to argue for a union, but not what the arguments are disguised as in public.
-h
*)If your organization is one that builds roads, how can you possibly subcontract your main activity to a third party without keeping that competence in-house? And if all you do is write documents all day, how are you going to keep that competence? Would Toyota survive if they subcontracted the "building cars" part of their organization, rather than the "all kinds of other things" part?
**)Granted, these things are hard to compare. If doing average numbers, it is not surprising that the most amount of average health per expenditure can be had by spreading the health expenditure rather evenly among the people. For systems of large inequality, some will spend a lot to achieve small health gains, while others will not be able to make small payments that would give them large health gains. It is my impression that even factoring in this inequality, the US health system is somewhat inefficient at delivering a given health for a given cost.
-
Rob,
I do not find it strange to expect that any government, irrespective of colour, should be obliged to care, above everything else, for its own citizens' health...I would put that up right at the top of the agenda along with national defence.
The first responsibility of government is to protect the lives of its citizens.
-
"Medical Bills"? What are they?
Oops, sorry - wrong politics...
-
A bunch of years ago, The Wife Unit needed some minor surgery. When we told the hospital that we would be paying cash for the surgery, we were amazed at how low the price suddenly dropped. It was about a quareter of what the original estimate was... when the hospital thought they were dealing with an insurance company.
Only one data point, but one that made us go hmmmm.
-
I find it interesting that posters from around the world seem to know all about America's ills, Fox News, etc.....yet often are relying on incomplete information, no personal experience, and getting all ginned-up about America, more than they logically should. Gulag's presentation of horrifying medical bills and stories is at least part fiction, and its obvious. But medical care is indeed expensive here, and the billing and insurance system is indeed a mess. Facelifts and laser eye surgery are comparatively cheap, and are getting cheaper all the time (in real terms) because doctors compete for patients who have to pay with their own money....but that's another story altogether.
What's not being talked about is the state-by-state medical safety net for the poor, which in Arizona is called AHCCCS (pronounced 'access'). It's also far from perfect, but I've personally seen it work pretty well. I've seen homeless folks that I've worked with get into that system, (once they find the right caseworker) and get good services...for free. It's messy, poorly publicized, has some strange restrictions, etc....but its there, and there are good people trying to improve it. But the fact that it and the other state systems exist and actually function doesn't fit certain narratives about 'gun-crazy, callous, uncaring Capitalist America'. The world seems oddly obsessed with scandalous headlines about America, but not the rest of the story.
Let's just close my Lula participation with this: The anti-American bias here is palpable, and ignorant, and I'm no longer interested in seeing it.
Adios.
-
I don't think you are correct in your reading.
I, for one, know zilch about the US medical system and feel delighted that on my visits I had insurance and no need to exercise it. I would have felt happy at that anywhere in the world.
That some posters put out some 'controversial' posts in order to excite a response is also okay - IMO - because all you have to do, if it bothers you or you really give a damn, is reply and tell them where their mistakes lie.
I don't imagine anyone from the UK is totally thrilled at the state of their state system; I don't think anyone is totally thrilled at any public service, anywhere.
But rolling your eyes and walking away doesn't help anything, least of all your indignation.
Rob C
-
Hi Slobodan,
Can you explain, we Europeans know far to little about how the system works...
Best regards
Erik
Nobody, it is written off.
-
... Rather than criticize a system that I have only superficial knowledge about...
How dare you inject such a preposterously sane premise into our debate!?
-
C
Rob,
The first responsibility of government is to protect the lives of its citizens.
In a free society the people decide what they want from their government. It's in a statist government or dictatorship where people don't have freedom that the government decides what to do for the people. Unfortunately too many people are willing to give up their freedom for apparant safety.
-
Unfortunately too many people are willing to give up their freedom for apparant safety.
Right, Alan, and once they do that the "safety" always ends. The problem is that people are flawed and that's especially true of politicians (says the ex-mayor of Manitou Springs). Politicians try to make decisions for their people that only the people are in a position to make. That's especially true in the area of economics. As Adam Smith pointed out, a mass of people free to make their own economic decisions are guided by "the invisible hand." When the government takes over the hand becomes visible and deeply flawed.
-
Those bastards made me pay into a superannuation scheme. Oh, I'm happy now that I've retired!
Eating some very nice food on my super!
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11226044_851788828268388_5517867221973779421_n.jpg?oh=3f69db93a87dfabf2bd31b1ce0ad6da4&oe=566E2B9E)
Cheers,
The unidentified meat in the image is a very tasty double smoked ham.
-
Hi Slobodan,
Can you explain, we Europeans know far to little about how the system works...
Ah, Erik, I wish I knew. Very few people do, if anyone.
As amolitor and mezzoduomo already pointed out, the "system" of medical billing is anything but, more like a patchwork, a black magic mixed with hocus-pocus, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't, attempts by hospital administrators to:
- recoup charges for treating the uninsured or patients unable to pay by padding someone else's bill
- keep the hospital profitable
- satisfy the shareholders who insist on a continuous stock price growth
- pay million-dollar salaries to hospital CEOs
Many hospital administrators are encouraging (read: demanding) doctors to add unnecessary procedures or admit patients with ailments not otherwise justifying a hospital treatment, and actually firing those doctors that do not meet the quota.
It appears that medical practice is more and more driven by finance guys these days, not doctors. Individual doctor practices are also getting rarer these days, being gobbled by ever-growing hospitals and their beancounters.
As for my reference to "writing off" the bulk of a bill, that is what a hospital inevitably must do when everything else fails: insurance refuses to pay, the patient refuses to pay or successfully negotiates it down, they lose in court, etc. Then they move on to the next patient and pad his bill, hoping they'd get lucky this time.
Having said that, the vast majority of Americans are insured, contrary to the impression you might get in political debates. As such, they do not really care much what is in the bill, beyond their own share, which is known in advance and limited. When I go to my regular doctor, I generally know how much it is going to cost me. I really do not care how much he is charging the insurance, as I know insurance guys are big boys who can take care of themselves. When I go to a new doctor, a specialist, etc., I ask in advance how much it is going to cost me and actually shop around. You'd be surprised to learn that shopping around could lead to as much as 80-90% savings for the same service.
I am neither pleased with nor defending the system. I hate to shop around and negotiate. I also hate to spend hours negotiating the purchase of a car with sleazy car salesmen. But life generally comes as a package, good with bad, no cherry-picking, best-of-both-worlds, etc. When it comes to America, it is the preponderance of good vs. bad, that drives people to come here or those born here to be proud of it.
-
Australia is the place for Americans to be.. ;)
Oh, I can't wait for the next thread from our Aussie friends complaining how much more expensive everything photographic is down under, compared to America ;)
-
Luckily, I'm not black!
-
When it comes to America, it is the preponderance of good vs. bad, that drives people to come here or those born here to be proud of it.
And what is rarely acknowledged is that, insofar as we're able to keep it this way here in America, it is through a process of debate, often rancorous. It is by not giving in to any specific ideology, any specific panacea, by forcing continuous change and improvement as best we're able, that we maintain this state of "more or less good, more good than bad"
Without the debate, without the fighting, without the vicious backstabbing, there's no change. Without change, incredibly creative and motivated people will work out how to game the status quo, placing themselves as feudal lords over the starving serfs. The status quo is always bad, objectively so, because any status quo can and will be gamed by these people, who are not particularly evil, they are simply humans.
-
Wow, Gulag! Thanks again for pointing out how much America SUCKS! I can't tell you how illuminating this kind of information is. If you happen to be in America right now, you'll no doubt be leaving as soon as possible, since there couldn't be a worse place to be. If you're not in America, it's pretty obvious that you'll stay away forever and at all costs, as any rational person would.
PS: The documents you provided don't match up with the stories attached thereto.
For those whose indoctrination only allows them to view the world in duality, I'll keep it simple: It's not a bug, it's a feature.
-
Can you explain, we Europeans know far to little about how the system works...
Jan. 29, 2015 What Consumers Should Know About Rising Health Care Costs (http://time.com/money/3684959/steven-brill-bitter-pill-consumers/)
-
In a free society the people decide what they want from their government.
I get that. But why on earth are people so worked up about getting health care from their goverment? I still don't get why that is seemingly the turning point of living in a "free" society vs a "non-free" one. You guys (like us, like anyone) have so many other issues that ought to inspire a lot more enthusiasm or anger.
It is analogous to photographers getting worked up over minute compression artifacts in Sonys raw files, forgetting to check if the image quality is actually better or worse than the alternatives.
-h
-
When I go to my regular doctor, I generally know how much it is going to cost me.
right, with a regular office visit you do ... but that was/is a low hanging fruit, Slobodan... why use such an example at all.
When I go to a new doctor, a specialist, etc., I ask in advance how much it is going to cost me and actually shop around. You'd be surprised to learn that shopping around could lead to as much as 80-90% savings for the same service.
ever tried to shop about for a surgery (hospital, surgeon, backup surgeon, guy who will knock you out, etc) like gall bladder removal with a hospital ? get a quote in writing ;) ? sure - they say we don't know what might happen, so try to get the price list for the various possible charges then ?
-
Can you explain, we Europeans know far to little about how the system works...
typical (there are other types) insurance has a concept of provider being in-network, that means that provider agrees to use certain procedures, etc and accept certain prices from insurance... they will still "bill" insurance for whatever they want, but insurance will write off the difference between the bill and agreed price and pay percentage of that price...good insurance (rare thing nowadays) will pay 100% no deductible... average insurance will pay 80%, you 20% or 85/15 or 90/10 and often after deductible (which again may be as low as some hundreds a year or as much as several thousand a year and you still pay your monthly premiums)... when Slobodan says vast majority is covered he forgets to mention that vast majority does not get the same insurance as FTE employee of Adobe has... and omits the devils about coverage, deductibles, percentage, etc... good insurance is when you go a physician or even a specialist and pay zero for a visit... but you can as well pay $20, $40, $50... and then there is a concept of lifetime max in many (if not all) insurances saying how much they will spend on you in total... which may or may not be the issue - it is with cancers for example... so you might need to find some other options when the timing is not exactly good
-
Oh, I can't wait for the next thread from our Aussie friends complaining how much more expensive everything photographic is down under, compared to America ;)
The reason is because of the high import duties, excise taxes, VAT and other taxes added on to pay for 'free" medical care "paid" for by the government. That's the main point frequently missed by those who support government paying for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The people pay for everything one way or the other.
Currently medical care runs 17% of GDP in America going up to 25%. That's huge mainly caused by Medicare, Obamacare, insurance, and lack of enough competition and going up because competition will decrease faster as these government plans are instituted. Of course, doctors are figuring ways around the rules. My friend went to an eye doctor for an annual checkup. The doctor tested him with a half dozen different devices and tests and charged Medicare for each one of them. Although the rate for each was low, the quantity made up for it. Of course my friend didn't care because he wasn't paying for any of it. But the taxpayers are raising the overall cost of medical care and adding to wasteful procedures. If my friend had to pay himself, he would have not allowed all those tests. They were all BS. This is what happens when the user is not directly paying for things. The price goes up and the quality goes down.
-
I used to have painting lessons with Fred, a highly successful travel agent who was quite wealthy.
I've taught in inner city high schools with mainly newly arrived immigrant students.
We got along very well. Our core belief was we wanted a better life for ourselves and others.
One thing that we were in complete agreement was that governments should forget political point scoring. They should be working together to make our lives better.
Something for Americans to think about!
Cheers,
Ah! Just like olde Britain then!
(I think you might have meant parties, rather than governments working together, but I get your idea.)
Funny things going on right now within the Brit Labour party: one old guy seems to be on top at the moment for espousing the dogma of the 40s, 50s and all the way up to Blair, who realised that in the modern world, it made the party unelectable, changed to a more balanced point of view, and scored big. Beaten to a pulp at the last election, with the Conservatives in the saddle today, Labour again sees salvation in returning to the dogma that killed it earlier on. Progress. But then, I suppose there are still those who'd vote for Stalin. Or Hitler.
Must be the human condition.
Rob C
-
... One thing that we were in complete agreement was that governments should forget political point scoring. They should be working together to make our lives better...
And life should be fair, and all people should be good and smart (good looking wouldn't hurt too), etc. Alas...
-
I get that. But why on earth are people so worked up about getting health care from their goverment? I still don't get why that is seemingly the turning point of living in a "free" society vs a "non-free" one. You guys (like us, like anyone) have so many other issues that ought to inspire a lot more enthusiasm or anger.
It is analogous to photographers getting worked up over minute compression artifacts in Sonys raw files, forgetting to check if the image quality is actually better or worse than the alternatives.
-h
Why are we worked up? Medical care currently is at 17% of GDP going up to 25%. I'd like to take the 8% difference and save it for a vacation, others might want to save it for the child to go to a better college. Also, why should the government tell me how I should deal with one of the most important aspects of my life - my life and health. Do you know I couldn't go to a doctor because being on Medicare for elderly people over 65 years, there are doctors that have opted out and I had to spend $500 just for an initial visit? But it's not just medical care. People are tired of the government butting in all parts of their lives with higher taxes, deficit spending and debt (cause by Obamacare, Medicare and other medical programs as well as other government programs.) We don;t want to wind up like Greece. What's wrong with that? We don't want government telling us how to live? What's wrong with that? We're giving up our freedoms to a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington DC who really don't care about us but their own jobs and power. That's where all the resentment is coming from. That's why we're worked up.
Europeans are use to their governments telling then what to do. The only difference is today the kings and queens are bureaucrats. Americans threw off the yoke of noble power when we defeated the British King George III. Americans grew up free and responsible for taking care of themselves. That's what made us a great nation and people. We helped each other, we got assistance from our places of worship, neighbor helped neighbor, and most importantly we took pride in helping ourselves. Unfortunately, our spirit has been worn down by years of handouts by politicians wanting to gain our votes by giving us things seemingly for free. So now many of us go along because they are looking only at the gifts, not what they have to pay. But many of us don't want the handouts because we know that there is a catch. The catch being you have to give the power to make decisions about your life to others. And then you become serfs just like the Europeans were at the time of nobles. And that's anathema to most real Americans.
-
right, with a regular office visit you do ... but that was/is a low hanging fruit, Slobodan... why use such an example at all..
Because it constitutes 90% of my encounters with doctors?
The issue here is probability. Only a fraction of Americans are ever going to end up in the situation your OP bills indicate. And only a fraction of those who do would end up paying such bills in full.
-
But why on earth are people so worked up about getting health care from their goverment? I still don't get why that is seemingly the turning point of living in a "free" society vs a "non-free" one.
The propaganda put forth, by the many vested interests, portrays change as an attack on enshrined freedoms. It's a variation on the tactic that prompted Samuel Johnson to opine - "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
-
And what is rarely acknowledged is that, insofar as we're able to keep it this way here in America, it is through a process of debate, often rancorous. It is by not giving in to any specific ideology, any specific panacea, by forcing continuous change and improvement as best we're able, that we maintain this state of "more or less good, more good than bad"
Without the debate, without the fighting, without the vicious backstabbing, there's no change. Without change, incredibly creative and motivated people will work out how to game the status quo, placing themselves as feudal lords over the starving serfs. The status quo is always bad, objectively so, because any status quo can and will be gamed by these people, who are not particularly evil, they are simply humans.
Wow, Andrew, sometimes we disagree but when we agree we really agree! Not long ago I wrote a short essay titled "Talking About Politics (http://www.russ-lewis.com/history/politics.htmlhttp://)" and put it on one of my webs. It was for my own family: actually, the four families of my four sons. A couple of the wives are scared to death of political discussions, and I pointed out the importance of rancorous discussions in developing worthwhile political solutions to our problems. Political discussion tends to be rancorous when people are committed. Which, by the way, is what's wrong with a lot of our politicians. They're committed all right, but committed to themselves.
-
Because it constitutes 90% of my encounters with doctors?
right, but the issue is exactly the rest of situations... why don't we simply stop treating 10%, the most expensive, cases and let those folks to die off... profit... it is only 10%, right... 90% is what matters
-
Russ,
A couple of the wives are scared to death of political discussions...
They are scared to death of the adverse effect that political discussion can have on family relationships.
-
... why don't we simply stop treating 10%, the most expensive, cases and let those folks to die off... profit...
Straw-man argument.
-
Russ,
They are scared to death of the adverse effect that political discussion can have on family relationships.
No, Actually, Rob, they feel personally threatened. Both come from families where discussion of serious topics of any kind was unusual and political discussion was verboten.
-
"And life should be fair, and all people should be good and smart (good looking wouldn't hurt too), etc. Alas..."
Yes, the Swiss have governments that cooperate and work for the benefit of the people. It is not fairyland stuff. They have around seven major political parties. That is, their governments do not have a political party that holds anywhere near of all of the power. They have to work together if they want to get things done, fancy that.
At least we have had one bit of revenge, we did give you Rupert Murdoch!
Cheers,
The point that Fred made that I really liked was for example, if they wanted to make a change to their healthcare system there would have to be some sort of consensus. That is, you couldn't have Obamacare, it would be a joint decision. The major result seems to be the disappearance of flip flopping every time there is a change of government. Wedge politics has lost its power.
-
The reason is because of the high import duties, excise taxes, VAT and other taxes added on to pay for 'free" medical care "paid" for by the government. That's the main point frequently missed by those who support government paying for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The people pay for everything one way or the other.
I won't wade into this discussion, but want to make a couple of comments (I was born and live in Canada). The above characterization of "free" medical coverage is loaded and basically incorrect way to describe the situation. That language is deliberately chosen to load the discussion, imo. Everyone knows it's not free, and it's silly to describe it that way. What we have in Canada, at least, is a nation-wide health insurance policy that we decided to buy for ourselves, nothing more. (To be accurate, it's actually 10 such systems, since each province administers its own.) There is a set of medical procedures that are covered for everyone in the country paid for out of general tax revenues, but if you want to call them premiums instead of taxes, go ahead if that makes you feel better. For some reason, people get their backs up when they hear the word taxes, but are somehow ok with fees and premiums. Whatever floats your boat. We can travel from province to province, get taken care of with no out-of-pocket expenses (with some exceptions), and the agencies involved figure out how to pay each other inter-provincially.
Almost everything we hear in the US media about Canadian socialized medicine and civil servants deciding who lives or dies is just plain stupid nonsense. Our doctors are all self-employed professionals, some are in individual practices, others in more complex arrangements. They just do most of their billing, not all, to one agency, simplifying their overhead.
Some people feel that they are better served by a system of private insurers, because, presumably, they "compete" to lower costs. I used to know something about the internal workings of insurance companies and that statements makes me laugh out loud.
On vacation once, I met a surgeon from Michigan and we started talking about how our medical systems differ. I am a layman, not an expert, but did my best to describe our system. He viewed the Canadian single-payer system as a godsend. He said that his greatest office overhead expense was catering to the different demands of all the different insurance systems that he had to deal with. He was disgusted at the amount of time he had to spend with insurance company staff debating the merits of his medical choices for his patients, calling it a huge bureaucratic interference in private matters, and it came from many different companies, each with their own agenda. He considered it the worst part of his job and consumed for too much of his time that should have been spent with patients. Of course, it's just one story.
One aspect of private insurers, and it happens with car insurance, is that you have to renew it periodically (typically, yearly) and at some point, if they consider you too great a risk, they refuse to renew, leaving you in the lurch. It's not unknown for companies to dump you as a client if you get really sick, I've heard/read the anecdotal evidence and I sincerely hope they are exaggerated stories. Personally, a system that allows companies to dump coverage precisely when it is most needed is repulsive.
-
One aspect of private insurers, ... if they consider you too great a risk, they refuse to renew, leaving you in the lurch. It's not unknown for companies to dump you as a client if you get really sick, I've heard/read the anecdotal evidence and I sincerely hope they are exaggerated stories. Personally, a system that allows companies to dump coverage precisely when it is most needed is repulsive.
You could fill many forum pages of examples of insurance companies delaying decisions, not following the laws and for all I know, hoping that the patient dies before they have to pay.
My wife needed a spinal/skeletal surgery. The state law stated that these types of surgeries must be approved by the insurance company immediately and with no adjudication. The reason being that delays can result in serious and permanent disabilities. Our insurance company (a major company) put it under adjudication for almost a year. Surprisingly, the adjudication came to a halt when our lawyer got in touch with the state health board.
One should not need a lawyer to get an insurance company to comply to the state law... but I guess you do. I would suggest that all American's budget for lawyer expenses as part of their health care budget. :(
-
I guess American apprehensions about government-controlled health care stem from the current and vivid experience with the existing one: VA (veteran affairs). If that's how they treat their own, those who sacrificed their heath for the country, what's left for the rest?
-
"One aspect of private insurers, and it happens with car insurance, is that you have to renew it periodically (typically, yearly) and at some point, if they consider you too great a risk, they refuse to renew, leaving you in the lurch. It's not unknown for companies to dump you as a client if you get really sick, I've heard/read the anecdotal evidence and I sincerely hope they are exaggerated stories. Personally, a system that allows companies to dump coverage precisely when it is most needed is repulsive."
I don't fear getting sick in Australia, I do fear getting sick. Bugger, getting older is a pain!
Cheers,
-
I think Robert Roaldi explains it very well.
Here, in Europe, you can get a card (in my case, from Britain) that allows you the same treatment across Europe (in state medicine), should you find yourself travelling within the European Union, as you would have received under your home jurisdiction. This does not replace a normal travel insurance policy, by the way. I think that traveller's insurance card is called the E111 or similar.
If you are legally a resident in Spain, you can be put onto the 'host' country's list and get all the medical help you need. In theory. I say that, because there's a complication: unlike what I take to be the Canadian example, here the country (Spain) is split into provinces, but each seems to issue its own version of the local medical card for internal use. For example: I have one for the Balearic region. Once, getting my regular prescription from the local chemist, I asked what would happen if I found myself in another part of Spain, wanting to use my card. She told me that I would need to register in that other place. Now, I have not asked my doctor this question, but as a dispensing chemist of many years, I'd imagine the chemist knows her stuff because she obviously deals with many Spanish tourists from around this relatively large country.
Actually getting registered for these 'host's' benefits can be quite time-consuming and was once a very heavily bureaucratic adventure. Having been here many years I have no idea how newbies get handled today.
If one thought too deeply, one would stay at home all day long.
Rob C
-
I was perfectly happy with the insurance i had. Recently my wife went to the doctor for an injury. The doctor wanted to see an mri. We went across the street to a lab and had it done and was back to the doctor in two hours. He reviewed the mri that day. It cost us a co-pay of $15 or $20.
The insurance company paid the lab probably $500. I hear in Canada, you can wait months until they approve an mri. That's the reason many Canadians come over the border to the USA when they need an mri and pay fully out of pocket for it. What good is cheap if you can't get it when you need it?
-
My nephew had this major medical emergency. The local hospital couldn't help, the regional hospital couldn't help. He was flown to a major hospital, they couldn't help. He was helicoptered to a world class children's hospital that saved his life. The cost, nothing!
Socialised medicine, thank god!
Medicare in Australia is 1.5% of my taxes.
Cheers,
-
It cost us a co-pay of $15 or $20.
Don't you pay health insurance premiums?
I hear in Canada, you can wait months until they approve an mri.
When you say "approve an mri" that seems to be an expression of your political concerns.
What good is cheap if you can't get it when you need it?
Now that is an interesting question: MRI is a diagnostic tool; MRI is not the only diagnostic tool.
"My research at the Acute Knee Injury Clinic in Calgary suggests similar waste occurs in diagnosing knee injuries. This work found almost two-thirds of the knee-injured patients who had an MRI could have been accurately diagnosed using other more readily available and significantly less expensive techniques and tools (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-can-end-mri-wait-times/article22482296/)."
"Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France … Providers largely charge what they can get away with (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html), often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured."
-
I am a Canadian.
Over the past 3 years I have had 2 MRIs, 3 CT scans and 2 PET scans.
Average wait times (2 – 8 days). (These were non-emergency, and for diagnostic purposes).
Total cost.
$0.
The myths about the Canadian health care system that are promulgated in the U.S. are risible.
Michael
-
OK, all you relevance-cravers - have you seen or do you know about the specialized radiology monitors used for diagnostic imaging? They are pretty amazing. Even mammography has switched to digital, and mammography had the most subtle findings on silver halide film. So some of the radiology bill is to pay for "monitors to die for".
Do I earn my tea? (I am a tea drinker, though I am American...)
-
OK, all you relevance-cravers - have you seen or do you know about the specialized radiology monitors used for diagnostic imaging? They are pretty amazing. Even mammography has switched to digital, and mammography had the most subtle findings on silver halide film. So some of the radiology bill is to pay for "monitors to die for".
Do I earn my tea? (I am a tea drinker, though I am American...)
Darjeeling or Nilgiri? With or without milk? (I already assume you never use sugar.)
;-)
Rob C
-
I am a Canadian.
Over the past 3 years I have had 2 MRIs, 3 CT scans and 2 PET scans.
Average wait times (2 – 8 days). (These were non-emergency, and for diagnostic purposes).
Total cost.
$0.
The myths about the Canadian health care system that are promulgated in the U.S. are risible.
Michael
No, Michael, total cost wasn't $0. What you mean is you didn't have to pay on the spot out of pocket. But you and your neighbors paid through your taxes. I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that costs don't just disappear.
-
The questions aren't really about paying versus not.
The questions are:
can the government run a health care system better than a bunch of private insurance companies and their colleagues?
are additional costs of an alternate system, if any, worth it for increased simplicity and equality of access to health care?
While governments are pretty amazingly bad at running things, the US health care industry seems to be trying quite hard to top the government standard for Completely Bolluxed Up, so the first question does not strike me as having an obvious answer.
The second one's answer depends a lot on who you are. You're weighing unknown costs against personal values.
Anyone who claims that the answers are obvious here is just wrong.
-
What no one has addressed is that the original trolling post is completely meaningless. There is no verifiable data to link those crops of bills to anything real. But even as worthless as the post is, look at the responses it's gotten. I like to visit Lula to read and post about photography.
-
Once again, this is the Coffee Corner. There are 32 other subforums which are all entirely about photography.
Also, while the original bills may or may not accurately reflect anything, there's really no question that medical bills can and frequently are astronomical.
-
While governments are pretty amazingly bad at running things, the US health care industry seems to be trying quite hard to top the government standard for Completely Bolluxed Up, so the first question does not strike me as having an obvious answer.
Right, Andrew. But have you ever gone in for a physical or some small problem and watched what your doctor has to do? He no longer has time to relate to you. He has to sit there with a laptop and satisfy government requirements. That's first priority. You come second. But not by his choice. To add to the absurd situation, medical school doesn't teach typing, so the poor guy is sitting there diddling on the keyboard with two fingers.
-
Oh, it's awful. You wait and wait and wait and some nurse comes in and does all the work and then the doctor comes in and hurriedly re-does part of the work, inattentively.
It's my impression that this is due to the profit motive, however. Doctors are scheduled in increasingly smaller increments, because the incredible layered structure of corporations that wish to extract revenue from this guy desire to extract more revenue.
There are also government requirement in play, adding to the bureaucratic loads, but it's not clear to me that this specifically affects the exceedingly brief doctor visit. Where those his ME is in moving medical records around. I understand that there are privacy concerns for some people, but golly, if I could opt out of HIPPA and simply have my family's medical records published on a billboard, I'd be all over that.
-
But even as worthless as the post is, look at the responses it's gotten. I like to visit Lula to read and post about photography.
Evidently there are people who will accept any excuse to opine about US healthcare and there are people who will look upon that with some surprise, and some of those same people may also like to opine about photography.
It's a buffet. Partake of whatever suits your tastes.
-
Where is the OP? He's disappeared except for one additional trolling post.
-
No, Michael, total cost wasn't $0. What you mean is you didn't have to pay on the spot out of pocket. But you and your neighbors paid through your taxes. I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that costs don't just disappear.
I should have written ... "out of pocket costs". Nothing costs $0.
Canada does pretty well with medical costs. It's currently about 11% of GDP, lower than some developed countries with national systems (actually, ours is provincial), and higher than a few. In the U.S. I understand that it's about 17% of GDP, but with millions of people not covered. Our coverage is universal.
Not to belabour the point, but the arguments against universal health care ring hollow to me. In the 19th century some argued against universal primary and then secondary education. Now we would judge such a position is untenable. An educated population benefits everyone. Similarly a healthy population.
For those who want a simple primer in how the Canadian national health system works, this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada) is a good start.
Michael
-
The questions are…
The question is -- Do consumers accept that healthcare provision is not a monopoly just because industry lobbyists say so again and again?
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; without price transparency, or a reasonable expectation that consumers are in any position to price-shop while their life is at risk, healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; a monopoly requires external regulators to promote quality and limit costs.
-
The question is -- Do consumers accept that healthcare provision is not a monopoly just because industry lobbyists say so again and again?
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; without price transparency, or a reasonable expectation that consumers are in any position to price-shop while their life is at risk, healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; a monopoly requires external regulators to promote quality and limit costs.
The dark, dirty secret is Obama along with the Democrats went to bed with the insurance companies. They supported Obamacare because it created a law where everyone has to pay for insurance who is not on Medicare (over age 65). So this increased the number of customers for the insurance companies who have now increased and will continue to increase the cost for insurance so the public will pay more for their health care then they would have before the law. For example, my cousin and her husband (who are both 63) are now paying $19,000 for health insurance. That high price came around only in last couple of years.
Can you imagine a law that required everyone to buy a camera? It could be a P&S or a DSLR, but you had to get one. What would happen to the quantity of cameras sold every year by Nikon, Canon, etc? What do you think would happen to the prices? The insurance companies are going to clean up.
-
That's not a secret. It's common knowledge. Just a matter of the historical record, though, obamacare was lifted pretty much verbatim from an idea the Republicans had floated a short time before.
So, one might wish to take a little care with casting aspersions.
As a consumer of obamacare, I can say that I wish it was a better system.
-
I should have written ... "out of pocket costs". Nothing costs $0.
Canada does pretty well with medical costs. It's currently about 11% of GDP, lower than some developed countries with national systems (actually, ours is provincial), and higher than a few. In the U.S. I understand that it's about 17% of GDP, but with millions of people not covered. Our coverage is universal.
Not to belabour the point, but the arguments against universal health care ring hollow to me. In the 19th century some argued against universal primary and then secondary education. Now we would judge such a position is untenable. An educated population benefits everyone. Similarly a healthy population.
For those who want a simple primer in how the Canadian national health system works, this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada) is a good start.
Michael
I hear you, Michael, but I've also heard the Canadian snowbirds who've been coming down to Florida over the past 25 years we've been snowbirds there from Colorado. Many of them have a very different attitude than you have about the situation. For now I'll reserve judgment and wait for more data.
-
That's not a secret. It's common knowledge. Just a matter of the historical record, though, obamacare was lifted pretty much verbatim from an idea the Republicans had floated a short time before.
So, one might wish to take a little care with casting aspersions.
As a consumer of obamacare, I can say that I wish it was a better system.
Please don't try to change history. Not one Republican voted for Obamacare. Not one Republican was even invited into the conferences to decide what was in the Obamacare law; only Democrats were there. This law was passed by Democrats only which is one of the reasons the Democrats lost the Senate to Republicans and Democrat congressmen lost big time in the last election.
-
I never said the voted for it. I said the plan was lifted from them.
Actually it turns out that basically everyone has floated this plan at one time or another. The insurance companies have been trying to get it done for decades and whatever party was in charge obediently carried water as instructed. The form, as finally passed, very closely resembles the form proposed by the Republicans in the go round one turn before Obama was elected.
I actually looked up the history. Did you?
-
Case study (me):
Left hip replacement surgery: 3 visits to doctor, X-rays, pre-operation consultations, 3 visits to dentist, surgery with 2 nights in the hospital, removal of stitches 2 weeks after (actually steel staples). Total cost to me: 270 €. They also compensated me the cost of driving to to hospital & taxi home.
Happy taxpayer.
And all 3 kids are going through the best universities. Cost: government is paying them 500€ a month…
Happy to live here...
-
Case study (me):
Left hip replacement surgery: 3 visits to doctor, X-rays, pre-operation consultations, 3 visits to dentist, surgery with 2 nights in the hospital, removal of stitches 2 weeks after (actually steel staples). Total cost to me: 270 €. They also compensated me the cost of driving to to hospital & taxi home.
Happy taxpayer.
And all 3 kids are going through the best universities. Cost: government is paying them 500€ a month…
Happy to live here...
Lucky you!
In Mallorca, which I presume is still within Spain - but you never know, what with local separatists - dentistry forms no part of the National Health system. You pay (personally) for it all.
My wife and I used to go to a very good Argentinian dentist in Alcudia, a neighbouring town, and I discovered he was an avid photographer too. Regardless of who was in the chair, mouth wide open, it was cameras and PS for the duration, the difference being that when I was seated, all I could contribute was a choke and a nervous nod. Anyway it was basically through him and his little digi-with-Zeiss that I saw my first digital print. I was knocked out by the colours and the crispness!
Anyway, he shared the clinic with his wife; they split, and he moved away to Gerona, on the mainland. I don't think he had an interest in hunting.
But, back to topic: I went to see the folks who'd taken over the practice and asked for an inspection, which I got, with the news that I requird three fillings. That surprised me, because I'd been doing regular six-monthy checks. Away, I got my first appointment and it turned out to be with a different dentist than the one who'd checked me out. This one tut-tutted a lot, then asked me what I needed done. That surprised me. Anyway, figuring that each filling comes in at a fairly standard €50 a pop, I reckoned that the pension could afford that, so I lay back and let the mother have his way. In the end, and several sessions later, the entire connection ended after I had run up a bill for €450. Three fillings had magically turned into nine! I swear on whatever you hold holy that this is the unadorned truth.
To me, it explains a lot about the buying and recreational habits of some of our fellow persons.
Rob C
-
… so the public will pay more for their health care then they would have before the law.
Health insurance premiums more than doubled in the decade before the law.
Again, the question is -- Do consumers accept that healthcare provision is not a monopoly just because industry lobbyists say so again and again?
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; without price transparency, or a reasonable expectation that consumers are in any position to price-shop while their life is at risk, healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
Whether healthcare is provided by for-profit corporations, non-profits or governments; a monopoly requires external regulators to promote quality and limit costs.
Can you imagine a law that required everyone to buy a camera?
"Financial Responsibility (Insurance) Requirements (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18) for Vehicle Registration"
-
Case study (me):
Left hip replacement surgery: 3 visits to doctor, X-rays, pre-operation consultations, 3 visits to dentist, surgery with 2 nights in the hospital, removal of stitches 2 weeks after (actually steel staples). Total cost to me: 270 €. They also compensated me the cost of driving to to hospital & taxi home.
Happy taxpayer.
And all 3 kids are going through the best universities. Cost: government is paying them 500€ a month…
Happy to live here...
That would be wonderful, Petrus, if "the government" actually had any money. What you're telling us is that the TAXPAYERS are paying them 500 a month. That's great if you want the government to decide how you should spend your money. Frankly, I'd prefer to make that decision myself.
-
As much as the American health system leaves much to be desired, and as much we might admire (or not) Canadian, Australian, Finnish, etc. socialized ones, one thing remains: social, political and economic systems can not be easily Frankenstein-ized, i.e., built by patching pieces, best of multiple worlds, into one.
-
Life! Who said it would be easy?
-
That would be wonderful, Petrus, if "the government" actually had any money. What you're telling us is that the TAXPAYERS are paying them 500 a month. That's great if you want the government to decide how you should spend your money. Frankly, I'd prefer to make that decision myself.
Taxpayers* have all together decided that giving free education to all who want it and are capable of receiving it, and paying them about 500€ a month in the form of rent and meal subsidies and also clean cash to make full time studying possible, is a good investment for future and equality in the society.
*) cabin, parliament and the elected president, who propose, pass and sing the laws. They all represent taxpayers.
-
There are certain services which we generally agree the government is best suited to administer. Things like law enforcement, fire departments, defense.
There are other services which we generally agree governments are not well suited to administer, the distribution of food, say.
The USA seems to be split as a nation on the question of where medical care fits. We're deeply unsatisfied with the private enterprise solution, but suspicious of a government provided solution. Other nations seem to find that their governments do a good job. They seem quite satisfied with the distribution mechanisms for medical care.
None of this has to do with "who pays" because the answer is in all cases "us".
-
Taxpayers* have all together decided that giving free education to all who want it and are capable of receiving it, and paying them about 500€ a month in the form of rent and meal subsidies and also clean cash to make full time studying possible, is a good investment for future and equality in the society.
*) cabin, parliament and the elected president, who propose, pass and sing the laws. They all represent taxpayers.
Exactly what I said. You have a group of people who'd rather turn over their money and their financial decisions to elected "experts." They don't feel competent to make adequate economic decisions themselves, and since that's the case they're probably right. When that's what you want, that's what you get. I'm not knocking it, but it's not what I want or what most people in the U.S. used to want. As far as subsidizing rent and meals plus handing cash to students, whether or not it's a good investment for the future is questionable. I notice that there are very few IBM's, Apples, Googles, etc., that come into existence in countries that do that. You might wonder why that's so. As far as "equality" is concerned, I'd point you toward Thomas Sowell's Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective. It's pretty enlightening stuff.
-
For those of us who are still in good health, this thread could be a useful warning and reminder of what's in store for us if we don't take responsibility for our own health.
It's no secret that the basis for good health and longevity is a lifestyle which includes regular exercise and a wholesome diet. Anyone who isn't eating an ideal, natural and wholsesome diet and who doesn't take regular walks, or some form of regular exercise (in addition to climbing in and out bed, in and out of his car, and walking from the kitchen to the lounge etc), is definitely increasing his risk of incurring huge medical bills in the future. Who pays those bills is another matter.
Most people seem to be in a state of denial about this issue of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. Almost 3/4ths of all Americans are overweight. About 1/3rd of all Americans fall into the category of being obese. Is it any wonder that America also has inflated medical and pharmaceutical industries?
-
Well said, Ray, which I why I wonder and worry that you subject yourself to Himalayan perils so dangerously often.
All that rarified air! Think of the dangers to your irrigation system, not to mention the external, physical hazards of rotten food, avalanche and landslide; the constant fear of the dreaded Yeti poop-dust in the atmosphere entering your lungs. You owe yourself better.
Far safer in the city, where all you risk is being squashed by a truck, getting held up and robbed, and that without even the basics of a sound, fundamentalist agenda to lend the happening legitimacy.
Rob C
-
There are plenty of ailments which are not dependent of lifestyle, like Parkinson's disease or osteoarthritis, the later of which I have at relatively early age. Lifestyle: I hiked for almost 2 months in the Himalaya 3 years before the first replacement, and the Inca Trail 1.5 years before the operation, which was slightly painful I admit. Kilimanjaro I climbed just 2 weeks after the diagnosis in 2008.
People pay taxes for many things also in the USA without much say about the use of money. They pay for basic services like roads, security (police & military) etc. In Scandinavia and some other places also medical care and education are included in the basic services which are equally available to all, just like roads are, without first asking how much one has contributed to their construction. Makes life much easier and less stressful, and free higher education gets at the end paid by those who have taken advantage of it by paying higher taxes from their higher income after graduation.
-
Well said, Ray, which I why I wonder and worry that you subject yourself to Himalayan perils so dangerously often.
All that rarified air! Think of the dangers to your irrigation system, not to mention the external, physical hazards of rotten food, avalanche and landslide; the constant fear of the dreaded Yeti poop-dust in the atmosphere entering your lungs. You owe yourself better.
Far safer in the city, where all you risk is being squashed by a truck, getting held up and robbed, and that without even the basics of a sound, fundamentalist agenda to lend the happening legitimacy.
Rob C
Rob,
Earthquakes excepted, the dangers of taking exercise in Nepal, trekking in a wondrous environment, are largely in the imagination.
My first great photographic adventure, with my new Pentax Spotmatic, was an amazing trek in Nepal in 1964, in areas where there were no hotels or guest houses. I slept in the houses of farmers in the villages and ate the same food that they ate. I experienced no problems; felt completely safe and don't recall having any stomach upsets or diarrhoea. Maybe I just happen to have very friendly gut bacteria. ;)
-
There are plenty of ailments which are not dependent of lifestyle, like Parkinson's disease or osteoarthritis, the later of which I have at relatively early age. Lifestyle: I hiked for almost 2 months in the Himalaya 3 years before the first replacement, and the Inca Trail 1.5 years before the operation, which was slightly painful I admit. Kilimanjaro I climbed just 2 weeks after the diagnosis in 2008.
I would phrase that differently. There are plenty of diseases resulting from particular genetic weaknesses which might not be preventable by a good diet and regular exercise; but such conditions can often be mitigated, or the onset delayed, by a healthy diet and serious, regular exercise, rather than the odd, occasional exercise in the Himalayas or South America.
There are no guarantees in life. Everything is a matter of probability, calculated using as many examples as possible. The more examples examined, the more accurate the probability.
If one is a smoker, and wants to justify continuation of the habit, one can always find examples of people who smoked for most of their life, up until the age of 90 or more, and eventually died of something other than lung cancer. One can also find examples of people who never smoked at all, yet died of, or contracted lung cancer at an early age. These are exceptions.
Denial based upon the observation of rare exceptions can be a huge problem.
-
That's not a secret. It's common knowledge. Just a matter of the historical record, though, obamacare was lifted pretty much verbatim from an idea the Republicans had floated a short time before.
So, one might wish to take a little care with casting aspersions.
As a consumer of obamacare, I can say that I wish it was a better system.
Sorry. You get a "F" in History. You're re-writing it. The Democrats are totally responsible for Obamacare. Just because many different kinds of plans were mentioned by many different people in the past means nothing. The Democrats wrote it (all 1000+ pages of it) without any input from the Republicans. The Republicans were locked out of all conferences by the Democrats who controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate at that time. Not one Republican voted for it. Every Republican was opposed to the law before it was passed. And mainly because of Obamacare, both the House and the Senate switched to Republican control in the last election because a majority of the American people didn't like Obamacare. You are probably the only person in America who thinks the Republicans had any part in foisting Obamacare on America.
-
People pay taxes for many things also in the USA without much say about the use of money. They pay for basic services like roads, security (police & military) etc. In Scandinavia and some other places also medical care and education are included in the basic services which are equally available to all, just like roads are, without first asking how much one has contributed to their construction. Makes life much easier and less stressful, and free higher education gets at the end paid by those who have taken advantage of it by paying higher taxes from their higher income after graduation.
Ah, but in the U.S. if you're driving an 18 wheeler on our roads you're paying a hell of a lot more for maintenance of the roads than if you're driving a Chevy Cruze. The other fact is that turnpikes like the Florida Turnpike, which prices your travel essentially by the weight of your vehicle and the distance you travel are much better maintained than are the freeways which are under federal control where road taxes are peed away on things like high speed trains. In the end free enterprise always leaves government control in the dust. That's not a theory. It's a fact borne out by history after history.
-
So you didn't look it up. OK, then.
Why you think the voting patterns are relevant is beyond me. They're no more relevant in the contemporary US Congress than they are in Canada or the UK.
-
I dunno, Russ. Has free enterprise done much in, say, law enforcement? I honestly can't think of an example, but it's the kind of thing that goes very poorly in the hands of free enterprise.
-
I'm late to the conversation but here's my 2 cents. I live in the USA, my employer is me and has been for over 30 years, so I've always paid 100% of the insurance/healthcare bill. I get group insurance through a small business organization because exhaustive research showed them to have by far the lowest rates for the best coverage. My wife and I have never had any sort of serious health problem. I've never even been hospitalized, yet our insurance payments would easily buy a new car every year.
Years before healthcare reform I had several insurance rate increases of that were each between 30% and 50%. After healthcare reform there have been other insurance rate increases, but they have been much smaller and more of the preventative measures are covered 100%, which actually saves a little money and helps to prevent bigger bills later on. Still, insurance and healthcare is certainly the largest expense we have.
I think our healthcare system is incredibly flawed, but a little less so now. We have quite a few very close relatives in Australia and I'm very familiar with their healthcare system. I think it is far better than ours ever was. Having for profit companies in charge of paying out benefits is by definition a conflict of interest. I'd much prefer a system like Medicare for everyone, which was proposed at one point.
-
I dunno, Russ. Has free enterprise done much in, say, law enforcement? I honestly can't think of an example, but it's the kind of thing that goes very poorly in the hands of free enterprise.
Used to work great when Wyatt was keeping the peace in Dodge, Andrew. But then the government took over.
The problem with law enforcement isn't the cops. It's the politicians running the police departments. That's anything but free enterprise.
-
Used to work great when Wyatt was keeping the peace in Dodge, Andrew. But then the government took over.
Wyatt Earp worked seasonally for the city government as an assistant marshal, under the elected sheriff.
Meanwhile…
-
Don't confuse things with the facts, Isaac. Try a sense of humor.
-
but such conditions can often be mitigated, or the onset delayed, by a healthy diet and serious, regular exercise, rather than the odd, occasional exercise in the Himalayas or South America.
What I was trying to prove is that I apparently am a reasonably healthy (proper diet etc) country boy, if I can hike the Himalaya, Andes and Kilimanjaro as fast or faster than people half my age. Genetical lottery might have given me early osteoarthritis and familial hypercholesterolemia, but fortunately I do not need to suffer the expenses living where I am. We taxpayers have chosen to have medical care and education along with law enforcement, justice system, road & waterway access as something which is free to all. Some other countries see things differently, and have the biggest prison populations in the word, kids leaving high schools illiterate and police shooting thousands of people annually. Free choice...
-
Don't confuse things with the facts, Isaac. Try a sense of humor.
I don't confuse your (or other people's) rhetorical misinformation with facts. Try whatever you like, we see what's true and what isn't.
-
The confusion is with your interpretation of humor as "rhetorical misinformation." You might try to work on that. There's a lot of funny stuff on LuLa. It's a shame to be unable to appreciate it.
-
Two years ago, my 32 year daughter survived a pulmonary embolism. Unfortunately she had to have open heart surgery to remove it because medications were not effective. Six weeks after her open heart surgery she suffered a blood clot to the brain, which also had to be removed surgically. She is now back at work and taking care of her two small children. Luckily we are Canadian, both surgeries and all medical care were taken care of by Medicare. She had the best doctors and the best care while she was in hospital and in physical therapy during her recovery. We were told that had we been in the USA, the open heart surgery alone would have been over a million dollars. Last year, my husband and I were hiking in Moab and he became severely dehydrated and required a visit to emergency. The 1 1/2 hr. visit to emergency cost us $2,000 US.
A medical disaster can happen to anyone, regardless of how healthy one is or how well you think you are taking care of yourself. I am happy to pay for Medicare through taxes, knowing that I will not be financially ruined should any major health issues arise, and knowing that my daughter is here today because we live in a country where health care is available to everyone who needs it.
-
Yes, and an intelligent medical system will have provisions for handling that kind of catastrophic emergency. But that isn't the same thing as an all-comers system where the people who rush to the doctor for "free" every time they have a hangnail have to have their doctors' visits paid for by their neighbors.
-
Exaggerations aside, there will be abuses in any type of system, that is just the nature of things. The cost to the system being abused by some is definitely a factor but knowing that you or your loved one cannot have necessary medical care because you cannot afford it or it will financially ruin you is unthinkable, but losing a loved one for the same reason is beyond devastating. If it is you or a loved one who needs medical treatment for any reason, the word "catastrophic" takes on many different definitions.
-
What I was trying to prove is that I apparently am a reasonably healthy (proper diet etc) country boy, if I can hike the Himalaya, Andes and Kilimanjaro as fast or faster than people half my age. Genetical lottery might have given me early osteoarthritis and familial hypercholesterolemia, but fortunately I do not need to suffer the expenses living where I am. We taxpayers have chosen to have medical care and education along with law enforcement, justice system, road & waterway access as something which is free to all. Some other countries see things differently, and have the biggest prison populations in the word, kids leaving high schools illiterate and police shooting thousands of people annually. Free choice...
Physical prowess alone will not necessarily keep one healthy. What constitutes a healthy or 'proper' diet is a contentious issue because the food processing industries are truly massive and will do anything to protect their financial interests.
There is also the problem that the enjoyment of food is a major pleasure in life, for most people. Any professional cook knows that the most important factors in any dish he prepares, are its appearance and taste.
It seems clear to me that by far the major proportion of health costs in developed countries like America, are directed towards fixing problems caused by unhealthy lifestyles, rather than problems due to genetic disorders and accidents.
However, regardless of such considerations, like you I'm sure glad I live in a country that has a taxpayer-funded medical system.
-
Two years ago, my 32 year daughter survived a pulmonary embolism. Unfortunately she had to have open heart surgery to remove it because medications were not effective. Six weeks after her open heart surgery she suffered a blood clot to the brain, which also had to be removed surgically. She is now back at work and taking care of her two small children. Luckily we are Canadian, both surgeries and all medical care were taken care of by Medicare. She had the best doctors and the best care while she was in hospital and in physical therapy during her recovery. We were told that had we been in the USA, the open heart surgery alone would have been over a million dollars. Last year, my husband and I were hiking in Moab and he became severely dehydrated and required a visit to emergency. The 1 1/2 hr. visit to emergency cost us $2,000 US.
A medical disaster can happen to anyone, regardless of how healthy one is or how well you think you are taking care of yourself. I am happy to pay for Medicare through taxes, knowing that I will not be financially ruined should any major health issues arise, and knowing that my daughter is here today because we live in a country where health care is available to everyone who needs it.
Healthcare is available to everyone in the U.S., but here the aftermath of a major illness is often financial ruin. Healthcare bills have been the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States for a long time and they still are today. In 2001 50% of all personal bankruptcies were due to illness and medical bills. In 2007 that rose to 62% and hasn't changed much since. Most medical debtors are middle class, own homes, attended college, and held responsible jobs. 78% had health insurance when they got sick. The reason for the high bankruptcy rate is that private coverage has holes like unaffordable deductibles and copayments, as well as brief or nonexistent coverage of medical services like physical therapy. In addition illness often reduces work-related income so medical bills arrive when the paychecks stop. The impact of healthcare reform on this situation is yet to be determined. Most seem to think there will be an improvement, but it's far from a solution.
-
I am a Canadian.
Over the past 3 years I have had 2 MRIs, 3 CT scans and 2 PET scans.
Average wait times (2 – 8 days). (These were non-emergency, and for diagnostic purposes).
Total cost.
$0.
The myths about the Canadian health care system that are promulgated in the U.S. are risible.
Michael
I am Canadian, too, and had also two MRI diagnostic exams this year.
The cost was identical ($0), but the waiting times were 7 months for the first MRI, and 6 weeks for the second. Both tests were done in the Newmarket hospital.
-
I am Canadian, too, and had also two MRI diagnostic exams this year.
The cost was identical ($0), but the waiting times were 7 months for the first MRI, and 6 weeks for the second. Both tests were done in the Newmarket hospital.
This is one of the flaws in the Canadian system. As with many things, it depends on where you are and who your doctor is.
The downtown hospitals in Toronto provide faster access than rural ones, and some doctors have more "pull". A sad reality.
Michael
-
Yes, and an intelligent medical system will have provisions for handling that kind of catastrophic emergency. But that isn't the same thing as an all-comers system where the people who rush to the doctor for "free" every time they have a hangnail have to have their doctors' visits paid for by their neighbors.
This is often said in arguments against single payer system, but I think if you talk to most Canadians you'll find that there is a keen appreciation that their "premiums" are part of their taxes, and therefore abuses of the system hurt us all.
Also, there are mechanisms built into the system, such as general practitioners monitoring their patient's visits for such abuse. Also, referral to specialists is via GP's, and is not done frivolously.
Visits to the ER are handled on a triage basis. Anyone visiting a hospital's ER for a hangnail or similar trivial issue will wait.... a really long time. Just doesn't happen.
In reality, this is a boogyman argument, and not a serious issue.
Michael
-
Michael, I think you're lucky enough to be in a location where the system works marvelously well. LesPatenik's story is a lot closer to the stories I get from Canadian snowbirds in Florida.
I also know what's happening with our own medicare and medicaid system in the US. We're losing doctors at a great rate, and there are more and more doctors who refuse to take medicare or medicaid patients since they actually lose money on those patients.
As I said earlier, I'm not passing judgment at this point. I need more data. But the data I have so far is a long way from supporting government-controlled medical systems. Your anecdotal evidence is interesting but hardly conclusive.
-
This is one of the flaws in the Canadian system. As with many things, it depends on where you are and who your doctor is.
The downtown hospitals in Toronto provide faster access than rural ones, and some doctors have more "pull". A sad reality.
Michael
Very true! And it gets worse, there are also other differences between the hospitals. Half the hospitals in Greater Toronto fare worse than the national average when it comes to keeping patients alive following major surgery.
Although the Southlake (Newmarket) hospital is not exactly rural (large modern teaching hospital with 3,000 employees, and over 500 doctors), even more worrisome is the finding by Canadian Institute for Health Information that patients admitted to this facility for stroke are more than twice as likely to die within 30 days as patients admitted for the same condition at The Scarborough Hospital. No information was given about the absolute number of such admissions and the outcome after 30 days, but in this situation doubling of any number is a real concern.
-
Radical differences in outcomes occur south of the border as well.
Part of the problem is that the phrase 'standard of care' is a misnomer. Standards, procedures, and policies vary all over the place. There is no real effort made to determine which ones are actually better in terms of patient outcomes, and there's way too much received wisdom.
This crosses borders. It has to do with the culture embedded in western medicine.
-
The confusion is with your interpretation of humor as "rhetorical misinformation."
They are not exclusive categories, "humor" is one way to disguise misinformation.
… government-controlled medical systems.
Have you used "government-controlled" healthcare?
-
They are not exclusive categories, "humor" is one way to disguise misinformation.
It's also a way to lift the gloom and raise your spirits. But to do that you have to have some humor in your bones, Isaac. You might want to look into that.
-
In Australia, I understand that the advantages of private health insurance is that one doesn't have to wait long periods for treatment for unessential, non-life-threatening conditions.
If the condition is serious, such as any form of cancer, one is treated immediately through the 'free' healthcare system.
I have a friend, without private health cover, who contracted cancer whilst living in the north of Australia. On diagnosis, she was immediately flown to South Australia, free of charge, where specialised cancer-treatment hospitals exist. She didn't have to pay a cent. 25 years later, she's still alive and in reasonably good health (as an octogenarian), perhaps partially as a result of my advice on the constituents of a good diet. ;)
I also encourage her to exercise, but she's a bit slack in that regard. ;)
-
In Australia, I understand that the advantages of private health insurance is that one doesn't have to wait long periods for treatment for unessential, non-life-threatening conditions.
If the condition is serious, such as any form of cancer, one is treated immediately through the 'free' healthcare system.
I have a friend, without private health cover, who contracted cancer whilst living in the north of Australia. On diagnosis, she was immediately flown to South Australia, free of charge, where specialised cancer-treatment hospitals exist. She didn't have to pay a cent. 25 years later, she's still alive and in reasonably good health (as an octogenarian), perhaps partially as a result of my advice on the constituents of a good diet. ;)
I also encourage her to exercise, but she's a bit slack in that regard. ;)
What happened 25 years ago doesn't represent the current state of affairs. Government services over time usually decline in efficacy while costs go up.
-
...I also know what's happening with our own medicare and medicaid system in the US. We're losing doctors at a great rate, and there are more and more doctors who refuse to take medicare or medicaid patients since they actually lose money on those patients...
I went on Medicare two years ago. One of the excellent doctors I used wouldn't take Medicare and a couple of the better doctors I wanted to start using also didn't take Medicare. If the government passes laws requiring all doctors to take Medicare (and Obamacare) to try to get good doctors to provide service to all, doctors will leave the medical profession in droves. Smart kids will forgo the medical field for other careers and the overall medical system will become third rate as the second rate students become doctors.
What's the expression that you get what you pay for?
-
...doctors will leave the medical profession in droves. Smart kids will forgo the medical field...
No problem...we will just keep exporting jobs to Asia and importing doctors from there.
-
No problem...we will just keep exporting jobs to Asia and importing doctors from there.
...and importing engineers for Silicon Valley, ...and importing illegal immigrants from Mexico, all of which reduces the number of jobs for Americans at both the top end and bottom ends and/or decreases the money Americans could have made as in the past in many types of occupations. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think this is going to turn out well.
-
I went on Medicare two years ago. One of the excellent doctors I used wouldn't take Medicare and a couple of the better doctors I wanted to start using also didn't take Medicare. If the government passes laws requiring all doctors to take Medicare (and Obamacare) to try to get good doctors to provide service to all, doctors will leave the medical profession in droves. Smart kids will forgo the medical field for other careers and the overall medical system will become third rate as the second rate students become doctors.
What's the expression that you get what you pay for?
If those smart kids are driven into medicine by money alone, do we really need them in the job?
I had always imagined, and it seems to be the case with my own granddaughter, that it's a vocation as much as anything else. It's having an attraction for how people work, how you can fix things when they go tits ups, and how you can be a bit of a miracle worker in your own, if limited, way.
Perhaps the last quality one wants to see in a doctor is avarice.
Rob C
-
What happened 25 years ago doesn't represent the current state of affairs. Government services over time usually decline in efficacy while costs go up.
We are U.S. citizens and have 2 kids and 2 grand-kids who are Australian citizens since college. One of the grand-kids has serious allergy issues since birth, and obviously having kids (one less than a year ago) created the need for medical care. I can only say that they are lucky to have Australian healthcare. There are very tangible reasons U.S. healthcare is consistently ranked worst among developed countries while being the most expensive in the world.
-
... U.S. healthcare is consistently ranked worst among developed countries...
??? I assume you meant the health of the population? As far as I know, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world. Meaning the most advanced. Everyone who is anyone flies to the States for the level of advanced treatment not available anywhere else. If thay can afford it, of course.
-
??? I assume you meant the health of the population? As far as I know, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world. Meaning the most advanced. Everyone who is anyone flies to the States for the level of advanced treatment not available anywhere else. If thay can afford it, of course.
I think the key point here, Slobodan, is 'if they can afford it'. One can't receive the best health care in the world if one can't afford to have access to it.
The following US opinion article provides some shocking statistics.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/30/no-the-us-doesnt-have-the-best-health-care-system-in-the-world
Here's a couple of extracts.
"According to Commonwealth researchers, 37 percent of Americans do not seek a physician’s help when sick or fail to fill prescriptions due to high cost, compared with 4-6 percent in Britain and Sweden. About 23 percent of Americans had problems paying or did not pay medical bills, compared with only 6 percent or fewer in Britain and Sweden. About 75 percent of Americans said the health care system required fundamental changes; in contrast, 50-63 percent of Europeans were happy with their systems. Americans in fact wait longer than most Europeans to see a primary care doctor: 63-76 percent of Europeans see a doctor within one to two days, compared with 48 percent of Americans; only Canada scores worse (41 percent)."
"First, our system has waste due to excessive bureaucracies. About $750 billion, almost a third of the nation's annual health care spending, was wasted in 2009. One-third of health care dollars are spent on administrative overhead, far higher than other countries."
-
??? I assume you meant the health of the population? As far as I know, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world. Meaning the most advanced. Everyone who is anyone flies to the States for the level of advanced treatment not available anywhere else. If thay can afford it, of course.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "best".
Does it have some excellent doctors, hospitals and technology? Undoubtedly.
But almost every ranking I can find shows that the US (and Canada) aren't even in the top 10.
Here one link. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)
And for those wanting some meat on the bones, there's this paper (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf).
Best? No. Try 37th, with Canada not much better.
This is not about chauvinistic chest thumping, this is about meaningful statistics.
Michael
-
If thay can afford it, of course.
exactly, it is like compare benefits for W2 employees between C-level and rank & file folks... are you seriously using this example about rich as an argument ? they simply pay out of pocket for everything, whatever billing is
-
...chauvinistic chest thumping...
Careful, Michael, this type of name calling can get you in trouble with moderators.
Oh, wait...!? Damn!
-
... are you seriously using this example about rich as an argument ? ...
Yes, seriously, because I was not referring to affordability of healthcare, but its advanced scientific, technological, and educational levels. When money is no object, the rich go for... the best, right? And that was my point. When they need the best, they fly here. I have not heard them saying: "I need this advanced medical treatment, please fly me to Australia."
-
If those smart kids are driven into medicine by money alone, do we really need them in the job?
I had always imagined, and it seems to be the case with my own granddaughter, that it's a vocation as much as anything else. It's having an attraction for how people work, how you can fix things when they go tits ups, and how you can be a bit of a miracle worker in your own, if limited, way.
Perhaps the last quality one wants to see in a doctor is avarice.
Rob C
I agree with everything you said, Rob (as I usually do), but it's not necessarily avarice. In order to stay in business with his own practice a doctor at least has to break even. In the US, on medicare and medicaid patients a doctor may actually lose money. If he can't pay his nurses and receptionist and can't pay the rent or the taxes he has two choices: he can join a medical group -- hospital or other organization, where his hours, pay, and method of practice are under control of someone else -- an administrator who may be an MBA rather than a medic, or he can give up and either retire or find another line of work.
What's happening in the US as Obamacare proceeds is that the very best practitioners are taking option number two. I had a wonderful primary care doctor who would listen to his patients and, sometimes even more important, to his nurses. I know about the second thing because one of his nurses was one of my daughters-in-law. He was younger than I, but old enough that when he saw Obamacare coming he decided to retire and play golf. I couldn't blame him, but I surely miss him, as do his other former patients.
-
People said that doctors would leave the profession in droves in Canada, when they socialized the medical system.
It turns out that "not as lucrative as it used to be" is still pretty lucrative, and driving a bus isn't all that attractive as a new career.
In general, people are completely wrong about what motivates people. As a for instance, people assume that a guaranteed income (a stipend of, say, $15,000 a year given to everyone by the government) will create a nation of TV watching lumps, and this is simply wrong. Experiments have shown that this simply doesn't happen. Given an opportunity to work and improve their lot, most people will. People are motivated in subtle ways by subtle things, and the "obvious" analysis of what will happen is usually wrong.
-
Unfortunately it's not the "droves" that are the problem. As usual, it's the high-performers you lose. Most high performers are quite capable of leaving one profession and moving to a different one. What's left behind are droves of drones. When you talk about "what motivates people," Andrew, you're biting off a huge chunk of generalization.
I agree that "not as lucrative" isn't the same as "wiped out," but wiped out is exactly what some sole practitioners see facing them in the future. I think Rob's exactly right: the good doctors go into medicine for reasons other than money. But those are the same doctors who aren't comfortable being told how to practice their profession by bean counters.
-
It's also a way to lift the gloom and raise your spirits. But to do that you have to have some humor in your bones, Isaac. You might want to look into that.
Apparently the merchants in Dodge first hired a private lawman and when that proved ineffective they turned to government provided troops, and then local government with the appointment of a sheriff.
Your mistaken - "Used to work great when Wyatt was keeping the peace in Dodge, Andrew. But then the government took over." - is actually an example of failed free enterprise being rescued by government.
Have you used "government-controlled" healthcare?
-
Isaac, I say again: you ought to look into that. (A sense of humor that is.) It would be worth your time to try to develop one.
-
The reality is that Canada, and other nations with government run health care, *are* able to retain doctors. Hypotheticals are one thing, but reality is quite another.
That said, there is a flow of practitioners across the border, north to south. I don't know about the other direction, and suspect that it's smaller. You can make more money in the USA than in Canada.
As for the state of health care in Canada, here's a another little dose of reality: MRI machines and the like are not free. The USA's astronomical health care costs are driven, in a large part, but unnecessary procedures and tests. The fact that there is an MRI machine down every hall sitting idle, does indeed cause a trend of more MRI tests. Canada doesn't have an MRI machine down every hall, that's a fact.
There's a benefit of being able to get an MRI on a moment's notice. That's real. That saves lives.
There's also a cost.
Much as I dislike the idea of placing a dollar value on human life, we have to recognize that our attitude of "no amount is too great" is a big slice of why we're going broke on medical care in this country.
-
The low payments by Medicare, Medicaid, etc. often force doctors, even the best, to treat patients as another number. They have to shuffle patients through their office to increase the count so they can pay for running their practice. They often have assistants do preliminary work and then they spend 5 minutes with you. How can you get good quality care and advice that way? You can't.
Also, they become creative in getting money out of the system. They proscribe tests that really don't have to be done. The patient doesn;t care because the he's not paying for it directly.
And let's get something out of the way. To argue that you want your doctors to be doctors who never think about money for themselves is just unrealistic. If that was true, the best doctors wouldn't raise their prices for their services. The truth is they are human,. Who would have guessed? They have family's too. And they want the best for their families and children just like everyone else. Who here would turn down a raise if it was offered to you by your boss? Well, doctors also want more money so they can send their children to the best schools and rear them in the best neighborhoods and provide the best clothes, food, and other things. Wouldn't you? The idea that doctors check their ego and pride and desire for the good things in life at the medical college door is just silly. Some may. Most don't. (I'm not talking here about doctors who are crooks, who lie to Medicare and bilk the system). They want to be recognized for their work and paid accordingly. And that doesn't mean they dopn't care about their patients or the work they do.
Let me ask you something. If money were no object, would you go to the specialist who charged $100 for a checkup or one who charged $500?
-
Isaac, I say again…
But for some reason you apparently don't wish to say if you have used "government-controlled" healthcare. That is kind-of "funny".
-
They have to shuffle patients through their office to increase the count so they can pay for running their practice. They often have assistants do preliminary work and then they spend 5 minutes with you. How can you get good quality care and advice that way? You can't.
That has been my experience even with private health insurance. My doctor does not spend 5 minutes, but usually by the time I see the doctor, I am out of the office in about 15 max.
Let me ask you something. If money were no object, would you go to the specialist who charged $100 for a checkup or one who charged $500?
That would depend on the doctor. If money were no object, I would find the doctor that gave me the best care independent of what they charge.
Let's put this in the perspective of photography. Would you rather pay a photographer $5,000 or $15,000 to shoot your wedding?
The price really has little to do with it. You would choose the photographer whose work you can see and who you feel you can have a good business relationship with.
Cost does not equate to skill in many cases. One can't assume that because someone charges more that they are better.
-
And let's get something out of the way. To argue that you want your doctors to be doctors who never think about money for themselves is just unrealistic. If that was true, the best doctors wouldn't raise their prices for their services. The truth is they are human,. Who would have guessed? They have family's too. And they want the best for their families and children just like everyone else. Who here would turn down a raise if it was offered to you by your boss? Well, doctors also want more money so they can send their children to the best schools and rear them in the best neighborhoods and provide the best clothes, food, and other things. Wouldn't you? The idea that doctors check their ego and pride and desire for the good things in life at the medical college door is just silly. Some may. Most don't. (I'm not talking here about doctors who are crooks, who lie to Medicare and bilk the system). They want to be recognized for their work and paid accordingly. And that doesn't mean they dopn't care about their patients or the work they do.
I don't know for sure if you are responding to me, Alan, but I certainly didn't write what you are arguing against. I repeat it here:
"If those smart kids are driven into medicine by money alone, do we really need them in the job?"
The 'bold' is my addition just for here.
Rob C
-
The reality is that Canada, and other nations with government run health care, *are* able to retain doctors. Hypotheticals are one thing, but reality is quite another.
That said, there is a flow of practitioners across the border, north to south. I don't know about the other direction, and suspect that it's smaller. You can make more money in the USA than in Canada.
As for the state of health care in Canada, here's a another little dose of reality: MRI machines and the like are not free. The USA's astronomical health care costs are driven, in a large part, but unnecessary procedures and tests. The fact that there is an MRI machine down every hall sitting idle, does indeed cause a trend of more MRI tests. Canada doesn't have an MRI machine down every hall, that's a fact.
There's a benefit of being able to get an MRI on a moment's notice. That's real. That saves lives.
There's also a cost.
Much as I dislike the idea of placing a dollar value on human life, we have to recognize that our attitude of "no amount is too great" is a big slice of why we're going broke on medical care in this country.
I've just gotta drop out of this discussion and get some work done.
I wish you could listen to some of the stories I get from Canadian snowbirds during our winters in Florida, Andrew. Evidently it's quite true there isn't an MRI machine down every hall in Canada. In fact it sounds as if there are very few MRI machines down halls in Canada. Some of the wait times for various things I've been told about are close to astronomical.
But I agree with you that health care in the U.S. has jumped the tracks. I've been around for 85 years, and I remember when I was a kid and got sick our doctor would appear beside my bed, take my temperature, feel my gut, make a diagnosis and write out a prescription. The bill for all that was a long way from unreasonable. Things changed when the government got into the act, and as usual when that happens, the change wasn't for the better.
And I certainly agree with you that the idea of "no amount is too great" is a foolish mistake. I think part of the problem is that having lost their faith, people are afraid of death -- not just afraid to die but put off by the whole idea that death is a natural part of life. I hope I can go gentle into that good night, because I know death isn't the end of it all.
-
But for some reason you apparently don't wish to say if you have used "government-controlled" healthcare. That is kind-of "funny".
Isaac, it's time for you to go read a book about photography. Nobody nowadays can avoid "government-controlled" healthcare because now that the government is in the act, that's all there is. As Ron Reagan said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Our health care is being "helped" by the government, and that's why it's imploding.
Beyond that, it's none of your damned business and I ought to report you to the moderators for asking. I know you'd do that. But I won't.
-
??? I assume you meant the health of the population? As far as I know, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world. Meaning the most advanced. Everyone who is anyone flies to the States for the level of advanced treatment not available anywhere else. If thay can afford it, of course.
Rolls Royce may be the best car, but sorry, I can't afford to have one. The difference between cars and healthcare is that I won't die if I don't choose to go bankrupt buying a Rolls Royce. One of the biggest problems with the US healthcare system is that many US citizens, even college educated ones with good jobs and insurance, can't afford to get sick.
EDIT: Major indicators of healthcare performance:
"Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care.
Access: Not surprisingly — given the absence of universal coverage — people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries.
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing.
Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives — mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60."
-
Rolls Royce may be the best car, but sorry, I can't afford to have one....
By the same token, you can not claim that RR is the worst car just because you (or the majority of people) can not afford it.
-
Beyond that, it's none of your damned business and I ought to report you to the moderators for asking. I know you'd do that. But I won't.
You're usually so insistent that other people should demonstrate they have experience of what they speak.
-
By the same token, you can not claim that RR is the worst car just because you (or the majority of people) can not afford it.
That depends on the metric.
-
And I certainly agree with you that the idea of "no amount is too great" is a foolish mistake. I think part of the problem is that having lost their faith, people are afraid of death -- not just afraid to die but put off by the whole idea that death is a natural part of life. I hope I can go gentle into that good night, because I know death isn't the end of it all.
Amen! I have no faith in organized religion but an absolute one in a God in my own mind.
The more I see or hear about medical/scientific discoveries about what we actually are, the more absurd the concept that accident had some pivotal rôle. Evolution provides no discomfort to that faith; it strikes me as just another part of the process.
One day or night I shall find out for sure; if I am wrong, then where the rub?
Rob C
-
That depends on the metric.
In which metric would RR be the worst car? Mao Tse-tung's? Khmer Rouge's?
-
In which metric would RR be the worst car? Mao Tse-tung's? Khmer Rouge's?
Gasoline mileage? Maintenance cost? Convenience of finding a factory service facility in your area?
-
Oh come now, the economist can't create a metric for "value" that places RR at the bottom of the heap?
-
You're usually so insistent that other people should demonstrate they have experience of what they speak.
Yes. I'll always insist that people demonstrate proficiency in a discipline they have the cojones to critique. I'm not in a position to critique medicine, so I don't do it. You might want to think about following that same approach when it comes to photography.
-
Oh come now, the economist can't create a metric for "value" that places RR at the bottom of the heap?
Sure... but it would be specific for that "value" (like RR and gasoline mileage, if true).
Dean Chriss, however, made a sweeping generalization about the value of the U.S. health care as "the worst among developed nations." None of the criteria in Michael Reichmann's linked article (that Dean repeated) have anything to do with the quality of health care, but mostly with factors not directly related to medical issues: poverty, income inequality, affordability, life style, junk food, etc.
-
I think you'll find the better doctors charge more. They're usually affiliated with the better hospitals, which often are teaching hospitals affiliated with medical universities.
-
I can't speak particularly broadly to the quality of health care in the USA relative to other developed nations.
I do have a single data point, which may be illustrative, however. Our rate of cesarean-sections is wildly, absurdly, high. This is, as far as we can tell, for a couple of reasons. The main theme is that it's always "safe" for the medical team to section. No matter the outcome, they're in a position to assert that they did everything possible.
This renders them proof (as far as possible) against malpractice suits.
This also makes things easy. C-section rates rise as the end of shift approaches, and as holidays approach. You may speculate on the reasons as well as I.
So there's a couple factors in play here. There's no penalty for sectioning the mother, basically. They're extraordinarily good at it, and rarely kill anyone. There IS benefit, you get to go home, and you generate a bunch of money. The USA is extraordinarily litigious, and the argument that "look, in my best judgement not sectioning was the best course" while statistically perhaps saving lives is not going to save your bacon the one time it doesn't. You can kill ten moms on the operating table, but kill one by electing not to operate and you've got trouble.
This sort of thing, I am given to understand, pervades the US medical system. It is this sort of thing that causes blanket statements like 'the USA has the worse medical care in the developed world' which may or may not be true. There's no denying that the care is excellent, but by some measures it comes in slightly below a lot of Europe.
-
If those smart kids are driven into medicine by money alone, do we really need them in the job?... that it's a vocation as much as anything else...
Rob,
Life has a strange habit of getting in the way of romantic notions pretty quickly. Once a doctor goes bankrupt, what's the point of his vocation? And doctors going bankrupt is happening here more and more often. Then the doctor is forced to work for a hospital, where his vocation will be managed by beancounters who are going to force him to spend a specific limited time per patient, among other things, and force him to order unnecessary and costly procedures. If the good doctor continues to follow his vocation and defies the management orders, he will be fired. At this point, he/she could join Médecins Sans Frontières in the jungles of Amazon, for instance, to follow their vocation.
-
Doctors are notorious for being the worst profession at managing their own money. That's not really apropos of anything, but it's a fact.
Possibly getting these guys some more personal finance education could go a ways toward making things better ;)
-
Sure... but it would be specific for that "value" (like RR and gasoline mileage, if true).
Dean Chriss, however, made a sweeping generalization about the value of the U.S. health care as "the worst among developed nations." None of the criteria in Michael Reichmann's linked article (that Dean repeated) have anything to do with the quality of health care, but mostly with factors not directly related to medical issues: poverty, income inequality, affordability, life style, junk food, etc.
I suppose I should have said "healthcare system" instead of "healthcare", i.e.; the "healthcare system" that makes the excellent "healthcare" inaccessible for so many.
-
Doctors are notorious for being the worst profession at managing their own money. That's not really apropos of anything, but it's a fact.
Possibly getting these guys some more personal finance education could go a ways toward making things better ;)
Damn! And to think I'd imagined that photographers had won that cup!
Rob C
-
I live in New Jersey where the state requires a helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you go right over the border into Pennsylvania, that state allows you to ride without a helmet if you're over 21 and passed a test. Of course it's safer with a helmet. But many are willing to risk not using a helmet in order to be free to decide what they want to do and how they wish to feel. http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm
It's the same with medical care and how it's delivered.
I think the issue with most Americans is not what's necessarily best for them. It's much about not having the government telling us what to do and how to live. I think that independent spirit is more ingrained in Americans than Europeans although lately Americans seem to be willing to give up their independence to a greater degree than before. So many of the arguments about socialized health care are about freedom to choose. Unfortunately, with Obamacare, we've put the final nail in the coffin of private health care. We're eventual going to have a one-payer system run by the government much like Medicare. Most Americans don't trust their government or the people who run it who they think are in it only for themselves. Whether public schooling, the post office or the Veterans Administration, when the government gets involved, not only do you lose your ability to choose, you wind up with worse services that costs more, which is what's going to happen with medical care as well. When more countries begin to look like Greece and Venezuela politically as well as economically, than my point might be taken more seriously. Until then, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe.
-
Rob,
Life has a strange habit of getting in the way of romantic notions pretty quickly. Once a doctor goes bankrupt, what's the point of his vocation? And doctors going bankrupt is happening here more and more often. Then the doctor is forced to work for a hospital, where his vocation will be managed by beancounters who are going to force him to spend a specific limited time per patient, among other things, and force him to order unnecessary and costly procedures. If the good doctor continues to follow his vocation and defies the management orders, he will be fired. At this point, he/she could join Médecins Sans Frontières in the jungles of Amazon, for instance, to follow their vocation.
Hi Slobodan,
Indeed, and that's perhaps largely due to the American way with law. The transatlantic example has spread throughout Britain too, that jumping to court whenever there's a chance. And our lawyers run tv commercials touting you do just that. OMG! I said touting! But it fits, sadly.
Was a time some years back in Britain, or at least in Scotland AFAIK that the 'professions' were not permitted to advertise; lawyers, doctors, surveyors, none of those professions did it; it wasn't just banned, it was deeply thought to be infra dig to boot, not British, if you like. Now, every cheapskate runs commercials trying to make you sue a bank, an insurance company, your employer, even your mother if you feel like it. As for running a business - I carried a small insurance that covered gear, third party and models, and should I be going off to shoot somewhere, special policies were to be had covering cost of a reshoot. Apparently, you now need to carry so much professional liability cover that it's crippling.
Like I've said elsewhere, this all boils down to the result of human greed, the constant looking for some way to profit from another's disaster. No wonder I tend to walk pretty much alone these days.
Rob C
-
On a completely separate note, Rob, my somewhat blurry memory keeps nagging me that you had a wife not all that long ago, and now it appears that you do not.
My condolences in all cases, but all the moreso if this is a recent event.
-
I live in New Jersey where the state requires a helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you go right over the border into Pennsylvania, that state allows you to ride without a helmet if you're over 21 and passed a test. Of course it's safer with a helmet. But many are willing to risk not using a helmet in order to be free to decide what they want to do and how they wish to feel. http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm
It's the same with medical care and how it's delivered.
I think the issue with most Americans is not what's necessarily best for them. It's much about not having the government telling us what to do and how to live. I think that independent spirit is more ingrained in Americans than Europeans although lately Americans seem to be willing to give up their independence to a greater degree than before. So many of the arguments about socialized health care are about freedom to choose. Unfortunately, with Obamacare, we've put the final nail in the coffin of private health care. We're eventual going to have a one-payer system run by the government much like Medicare. Most Americans don't trust their government or the people who run it who they think are in it only for themselves. Whether public schooling, the post office or the Veterans Administration, when the government gets involved, not only do you lose your ability to choose, you wind up with worse services that costs more, which is what's going to happen with medical care as well. When more countries begin to look like Greece and Venezuela politically as well as economically, than my point might be taken more seriously. Until then, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe.
Choosing to not wear a helmet and not have medical insurance is choosing to force everyone else to pay higher medical bills for one's irresponsible choices if anything bad happens. The only way that's not true is if hospitals let people die when they can't afford their own care. Like it or not, as independent as we'd like to think we are, we're all hooked together via economics. I'm not allowed to pile junk cars in my front yard because it brings down the value of every house in the area. My neighbor's freedom to not pay for me being a slob trumps my freedom to do whatever I want in my own yard. Everything is like that, including healthcare, no matter what system we have. It's just a matter of choosing the system that can actually help the most people rather than costing them all they have when a major illness comes along.
The same evil government that most people distrust is a government of, by, and for those same people. You'd think they'd give themselves a little healthcare security for the $3.8 trillion they spend each year. Of course it might be hard to do that and still have a defense budget that's as big as next 10 biggest countries combined. Maybe a defense budget that's only as big as the next 8 biggest countries combined would keep us secure enough?
-
Living, as I did for a time, in Norfolk, VA, the site of the largest naval base on earth, I learned the following interesting facts.
There is a legal requirement that the US Navy keep two carrier groups at sea at all times.
In order to accomplish this mission, we need 11 aircraft carriers. No, 10 will not do. We will not be able to keep 2 at sea 100% of the time, we must have 11.
I know what *I* would do if I were the Commander in Chief, but I'm not.
-
Choosing to not wear a helmet and not have medical insurance is choosing to force everyone else to pay higher medical bills for one's irresponsible choices if anything bad happens.
You've got that anyway. The cost of insurance is going up by leaps and bounds because of Obamacare. So everyone is paying more because of government intervention. Hello-o.
-
The cost of defense spending as a percent of GDP and a percent of government spending is almost at the lowest level it's been since the beginning of WWII. It's still going down and slated to be at the lowest point in a couple of more years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
The money for health care will have to come from other places - your taxes for the most part and a larger part of your income.
-
You're usually so insistent that other people should demonstrate they have experience of what they speak.
Yes. I'll always insist that people demonstrate proficiency in a discipline they have the cojones to critique. I'm not in a position to critique medicine, so I don't do it.
Do you have demonstrated proficiency in writing photography books? Do you critique photography books?
Meanwhile the question was experience of receiving "government-controlled" healthcare, not experience of providing healthcare.
Someone may have benefited throughout their life from "government-controlled" healthcare for them and their family but be ideologically opposed to the provision of "government-controlled" healthcare for other citizens.
Someone else may not have actual experience of "government-controlled" healthcare but be opposed to the provision of "government-controlled" healthcare because they've heard stories that make it seem like "bad" healthcare.
Someone else may be opposed to the provision of "government-controlled" healthcare neither for ideological reasons nor because they fear "bad" healthcare, but they pessimistically expect that any change will mean they personally will have to pay more for healthcare.
etc etc
In itself, the fact that someone opposes "government-controlled" healthcare isn't interesting, but the reasons can be interesting.
-
...the "healthcare system" that makes the excellent "healthcare" inaccessible for so many.
Now that is a distinction I can fully agree with. Far be it from me to be seen as a defender of the "system." I tend to actually lean toward socialized, single payer, etc. systems. My point was that the beast is rather complex and multi-faceted, and that any simplification, regardless of the direction (worse/best) is bound to be challenged.
-
Protip: If you want to hide egregious growth, measure against another rapidly growing metric. If you want to hide a disastrous decline, measure against something that's also falling.
Also, if large changes over time tend to to your thesis, base your chart as far as possible from zero, to visually amplify the changes. If the changes over time contradict your thesis, base the chart near zero. Or near -1000000000 if you think you can get away with it.
-
Competition lowers cost. It also drives up quality and innovation. Single-provider systems do the opposite.
-
Generalities are not universals.
-
Competition lowers cost. It also drives up quality and innovation. Single-provider systems do the opposite.
Since long before anyone knew who Obama was the US has had higher rates of infant mortality and mortality amenable to medical care, and lower healthy life expectancy at age 60 than other developed countries with single provider systems. The US has also had the most expensive healthcare system in the world since long before anyone knew who Obama was. If competition in healthcare systems lowers cost, why didn't it work in America? If Single-provider systems do the opposite, then why is healthcare in countries with single provider systems so much cheaper than ours?
-
Driven by the profit motive, humans and their institutions will strive mightily to eliminate competition or to render it moot.
Simplistic slogans do not, as a general rule, accurately capture human behavior or the behavior of economic systems in practice. In fact, it's not clear that economic systems in practice can be described at all in any terms simpler than themselves.
-
My point was that the beast is rather complex and multi-faceted. . .
Exactly, Slobodan, and if you want it controlled by government you want it controlled by people who are some of the dimmest bulbs in the room.
-
Can't really see what the big argument is about: Europeans ( & Aussies ) have decided that they're happy for healthcare to be provided by public bodies ( along with defence, emergency services etc ) & are mostly OK about paying extra tax to cover this. US citizens would rather arrange their own healthcare arrangements & expect to pay extra insurance to cover this. They both vote for the political parties which embrace these arrangements. Democracy. Cool.
Re: taking responsibility for one's own health. I have a couple of ongoing medical conditions - nothing terrible or life threatening but enough for me to lose working days. I deal with this stuff with some lifestyle changes ( being self - employed makes this easier ). No prescription drugs or professional medical intervention ( apart from the odd bit of NHS physio every few years ). I'm good at this. But, I'm not good at dealing with insurance jargon, small print & legalese which sounds like what taking responsibility for one's own health in the US entails. So the UK system suits me.
Interesting discussion.
Graeme
-
There is a legal requirement that the US Navy keep two carrier groups at sea at all times.
I know there is a law setting the fleet number to 11 carriers, but I can't find any law that states that two of of them have to be at sea at all times. Do you have a citation for that law?
-
The 'two deployed' rule appeared in some piece I read a couple years ago. Perhaps I misunderstood it? The general principle that we can only have about 1 in 3 or 4 deployed at any one time is oft cited, however, and that's the problematic part.
If I owned backhoes and my crews told me I could only be using 1 in 3 of them at any given time, if get new crews.
-
On a completely separate note, Rob, my somewhat blurry memory keeps nagging me that you had a wife not all that long ago, and now it appears that you do not.
My condolences in all cases, but all the moreso if this is a recent event.
Hi Andrew,
Yes, until six years and ten months ago.
One November she found a lump; four Novembers later, five cancer ops and one broken hip on her card, she quietly left us.
Thanks for the sympathy - these things are often difficult for others to express - always feels either plain awkward or even, in some cases, almost an intrusion.
We became an item when she was fifteen; she died in her sixties. It was a wonderful time together that I wouldn't exchange for the world; hell, I had the world.
The first four cancer ops were on private insurance; when she broke her hip she had the choice: private or public hospital. Private was 60 klicks away, public twenty minutes by road. She chose public to cut the time, and we discovered that public was every bit as good - if not better - than the private experiences. During checks for the hip they discovered cancer had returned. We asked the oncologist (public) about the differences in meds availability on the two sytems, and he said what you need you will get in the public service. Within ten days she had a new hip and the cancer out. During the many private visits for chemo, radiation etc. we were told by one private onco. that it was a constant battle between himself and the insurance companies over meds... and that's only inside hospital: out in the wild, you're on your own in private care.
It was that last pair of ops that led her to suggest we cancel the private premiums, which we did.
Here (Mallorca), my own public GP used to run his own private practice too, and consult in both the state service one as well as his own. I've never asked him - not my business - but I'm led to believe that part of being put through medical school means a public practice responibility too. Irony: after dealing with me and my own problems for a few years, during a consultation he told me he'd joined the club. I thought he meant the yacht one or perhaps the art one to which I'd belonged for a couple of years, and he laughed, said no, heart attack! Now, whenever I have to see him officially, I never fail to give him a short consultation about hearts (been there first, more personal experience than has he!); he has a sense of humour, thank goodness.
Rob C
-
I know there is a law setting the fleet number to 11 carriers, but I can't find any law that states that two of of them have to be at sea at all times. Do you have a citation for that law?
.............................................................................
I think the problem is that you can't keep more than two in good enough condition to be operationally useful. It's the same with bigger yachts: you can seldom just up and go - something always needs attention; the environment in which they live is simply so hostile to mechanical things.
Rob C
-
One of the questions that I ask myself is, is it working?
Most liveable cities:
Melbourne, Australia 97.5
Vienna, Austria 97.4
Vancouver, Canada 97.3
Toronto, Canada 97.2
Adelaide, Australia 96.6
Calgary, Canada 96.6
Sydney, Australia 96.1
Helsinki, Finland 96.0
Perth, Australia 95.9
Auckland, New Zealand 95.7
Socialised medicine that I can afford, a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that makes drugs in my ageing years inexpensive. Government interference so we couldn't buy into the causes of the GFC.
Yes, there are problems. The Chinese are driving up housing market prices in Sydney. There are benefits, Sydney in spring is great and the Aussie dollar is falling.
Is it working? Compared to most countries, exceptionally well!
Cheers,
-
Can't really see what the big argument is about … US citizens would rather arrange their own healthcare arrangements & expect to pay extra insurance to cover this.
Some US citizens would rather not. Some US citizens would rather have any arrangement more effective and less costly than the current one. That's what the big argument is about.
-
Competition lowers cost. It also drives up quality and innovation.
For sake of argument, let's accept those claims at face value.
Please show that, in the decade before Obamacare, healthcare insurance premiums became lower and medical bills became lower and healthcare outcomes improved.
Without price transparency, or a reasonable expectation that consumers are in any position to price-shop while their life is at risk, healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
-
healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
Even more so for those of us who don't have multiple hospitals within a small radius. There are a lot of places in the USA that only have one option of where to go. Just like we only have one cable provider, electric company, water company and other services.
-
I had though you'd been more recent with-spouse, as it were, Rob.
But regardless, it's a beautiful story. In a way they all are, but that detracts from their beauty not in the slightest. Thanks for sharing.
-
For sake of argument, let's accept those claims at face value. (Alan quote: Competition lowers cost. It also drives up quality and innovation.)
Please show that, in the decade before Obamacare, healthcare insurance premiums became lower and medical bills became lower and healthcare outcomes improved.
Without price transparency, or a reasonable expectation that consumers are in any position to price-shop while their life is at risk, healthcare provision is effectively a monopoly.
=================================================
1. You shop for insurance before you get sick. In the past, many states did not allow carriers from out of state to sell in their state lowering competition. Open up competition. Also, allow insurance companies to tailor their insurance to customer needs and what they want to pay for.
2. Tort reform. Change the limit on how much you can sue for. Beside the high cost of medical insurance that adds to doctor charges, doctors often prescribe tests that are not needed because they can argue in court that they did everything possible for the patient.
3. Medicare and Medicaid have been part of the economy for decades. When the government pays for anything, it raises costs. Obamacare is accelerating the costs even faster. Look what has happened to tuition. Because of government student loans, tuition has gone up four times the CPI inflation rate, all because of too much money chasing too little goods. Same thing has been happening with medicine and will get worse.
4. Despite everything, people have been living longer. Technology has made a very large impact on longevity. It remains to be seen however that Obamacare will increase longevity. Costs may hit a point where certain medical procedures may longer be provided for certain diseases for example based on age. Canada doesn't provide as many MRI's as America because of cost. That will happen in America effecting medical care.
-
I had though you'd been more recent with-spouse, as it were, Rob.
But regardless, it's a beautiful story. In a way they all are, but that detracts from their beauty not in the slightest. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks - it truly was.
Not to get too introverted for too long, here's a snap that I shot on 135 Kodachrome during our honeymoon. It's a very tight crop from a much larger image, and at the time I had imagined that the best way to save trannies was between glass. Umm no. Let 'em breathe is better, it seems.
It's the only time she wore short hair; when we first met she had Veronica Lake hair, and once it grew back she never cut it short again. Which was cool: she cut mine and I repaid the compliment. It was easy to do: straight hair in a straght line a few inches below the shoulders! Must have saved a fortune on barbers and hairdressers.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8044287_orig.jpg)
-
Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
Article here http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148.
Cheers,
-
Some US citizens would rather not. Some US citizens would rather have any arrangement more effective and less costly than the current one. That's what the big argument is about.
Yes. But they've been outvoted ( lost the argument ).
-
Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year...
The main problem with the U.S. is the myth of american exceptionalism, which for many implies that implementing any policy already in place in other countries equates to become "an ordinary nation".
Other nations have universal healthcare, U.S. don't: because of american exceptionalism, U.S. is right and the other nations are wrong.
-
The reason is because of the high import duties, excise taxes, VAT and other taxes added on to pay for 'free" medical care "paid" for by the government. That's the main point frequently missed by those who support government paying for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The people pay for everything one way or the other.
Currently medical care runs 17% of GDP in America going up to 25%. That's huge mainly caused by Medicare, Obamacare, insurance, and lack of enough competition and going up because competition will decrease faster as these government plans are instituted. Of course, doctors are figuring ways around the rules. My friend went to an eye doctor for an annual checkup. The doctor tested him with a half dozen different devices and tests and charged Medicare for each one of them. Although the rate for each was low, the quantity made up for it. Of course my friend didn't care because he wasn't paying for any of it. But the taxpayers are raising the overall cost of medical care and adding to wasteful procedures. If my friend had to pay himself, he would have not allowed all those tests. They were all BS. This is what happens when the user is not directly paying for things. The price goes up and the quality goes down.
No that's what happens when you have a corrupt system.
British healthcare is free and it costs our government less half what the American system does and that was before the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare was introduced in case you try and cite that as the reason.
The reason the American system is so absurdly expensive and inefficient is that there are a stack of parasitic businesses making huge profits off of sick and dying people.
It would be far cheaper for everyone involved i.e. the government and the American people it it was free and paid for directly by the government. Without countless businesses getting in the way and trying to profit off the sick.
What I find most strange about the US and healthcare, is that some people find the thought of helping people ailing people 'un-American' or something. The frothing at the mouth protests by people objecting to Obamacare, simply made the US look like a country full of crazy people. Some of the behaviour by these demented and ill informed people towards sick people was absolutely shameful.
-
No, Michael, total cost wasn't $0. What you mean is you didn't have to pay on the spot out of pocket. But you and your neighbors paid through your taxes. I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that costs don't just disappear.
Which stills works out to be vastly cheaper.
Two reasons.
1. No-one is making a profit.
2. Everyone contributing a small amount [that they can afford] they can afford via taxes is actually huge amount of money that can pay for a free at source service.
I can't begin to imagine the costs of my sister's healthcare would have been in the US. Renal failure, dialysis for many years and eventually a transplant.
I have a friend in Seattle who works as a nurse in emergency care. She's had breast cancer, mastectomies and various subsequent complications. She has struggled to afford to pay for this and friends have had to help her out. America should be embarassed buy the fact that someone who may help save your life, can't even afford the healthcare system she is employed by.
-
As much as the American health system leaves much to be desired, and as much we might admire (or not) Canadian, Australian, Finnish, etc. socialized ones, one thing remains: social, political and economic systems can not be easily Frankenstein-ized, i.e., built by patching pieces, best of multiple worlds, into one.
Actually that is exactly what should be done.
Take what is proven to work from wherever and use that. Just don't do a bodged and compromised version.
-
America should be embarassed buy the fact that someone who may help save your life, can't even afford the healthcare system she is employed by.
I think it's an american people's choice to have such a system.
Whether it's an informed or misguided choice, that's another matter.
-
Very true! And it gets worse, there are also other differences between the hospitals. Half the hospitals in Greater Toronto fare worse than the national average when it comes to keeping patients alive following major surgery.
Although the Southlake (Newmarket) hospital is not exactly rural (large modern teaching hospital with 3,000 employees, and over 500 doctors), even more worrisome is the finding by Canadian Institute for Health Information that patients admitted to this facility for stroke are more than twice as likely to die within 30 days as patients admitted for the same condition at The Scarborough Hospital. No information was given about the absolute number of such admissions and the outcome after 30 days, but in this situation doubling of any number is a real concern.
You should be careful to read too much into such bald and often meaningless stats.
The best hospitals and the best doctors may well have the highest number of fatalities.
Why? Because that's where the the patients where the most difficult problems and are most likely to die get sent.
Statistics such as the school league tables we have in the UK are equally pointless and meaningless rubbish.
-
What I find most strange about the US and healthcare, is that some people find the thought of helping people ailing people 'un-American' or something. The frothing at the mouth protests by people objecting to Obamacare, simply made the US look like a country full of crazy people. Some of the behaviour by these demented and ill informed people towards sick people was absolutely shameful.
The discussion is too often framed in the context of freedom of choice (which pushes a lot of buttons among those who have been primed to react) or as "government-run" healthcare, implying that some civil servant is sitting there in the doctor's office with you deciding what pills to take, or when to let you die. That's not what a single-payer system is, of course, but we're dealing with faith-based beliefs, imo, so facts don't matter. This may be partly the result of clever marketing by the private insurance industry, who have managed to convince people it is a freedom of choice issue. Of course they would, wouldn't they? Interesting that the insurance industry should, in this context, be the "good' guy, when it is almost always universally vilified otherwise.
The fact that large numbers of people can go bankrupt despite having insurance coverage should act as a wake-up but that doesn't seem to the case. I guess the retort is that they should have bought a better insurance policy, so it is really the sick person's fault. The people who buy the wrong policy stay sick and die early, or at least suffer a lot more; must be that creative destruction I keep hearing about.
But there may be a more fundamental thing going on. Some people believe that the reason humans form into groups and eventually societies is for the general benefit of all. Not everyone necessarily believes that. Some people believe that society exists as a support system for the successful. The notion that private enterprise is just one method we've invented to deliver some goods and services and that we should not expect it to always work in all sectors is not an acceptable point of view among some people. Government is always bad, it seems, except magically when it comes to security or intelligence or the military, then the government becomes a sainted presence to be revered and it is treason not to think so. As if things are that black and white.
There is also a knee-jerk belief that government-run enterprises always work out badly and cost too much. It's easy to come to that belief, those stories will always get media attention. I've worked mostly in the private sector and a little in the public sector, and the idea that private industry is efficient and government is not just makes me laugh out loud. I can certainly find examples of government inefficiency but so what. The fact that we don't hear about boondoggles in the private sector is only because no one can investigate and report on them as easily as you can in the public sector. Freedom of information doesn't apply to private companies. And anyway, no one regards those private boondoggles as things that affect them. Except for maybe those pesky financial meltdowns, but people find a way to blame that on government too.
It's a bit of "Four legs good, two legs better", isn't it?
What constantly fascinates me is how many people are more concerned with ideology than by trying to figure out what works best.
-
What constantly fascinates me is how many people are more concerned with ideology than by trying to figure out what works best.
It's nothing strage, in fact: our brain evolved to save our ass, not to earn the nobel price, which means that it is hardwired to use the simplest convincing theory, not the more proper one.
Thinking is hard (literally), so yes: "Four legs good, two legs better" because so many say it.
-
"I think the issue with most Americans is not what's necessarily best for them. It's much about not having the government telling us what to do and how to live."
The essential difference between America and Australia. Most immigrants come to Australia for a better life.
Cheers,
-
Which stills works out to be vastly cheaper.
Two reasons.
1. No-one is making a profit.
Tell me what you think "profit" is, Jeremy.
-
British healthcare is free. . .
HA HA HA HA HA HA, OUCH, HA HA HA HA. ROTFL!
-
You should be careful to read too much into such bald and often meaningless stats.
The best hospitals and the best doctors may well have the highest number of fatalities.
Why? Because that's where the the patients where the most difficult problems and are most likely to die get sent.
Statistics such as the school league tables we have in the UK are equally pointless and meaningless rubbish.
Good point! Conversely, some smaller hospitals that don't handle the more critical cases, may fare better in the statistics.
-
[quote]There is also a knee-jerk belief that government-run enterprises always work out badly and cost too much. It's easy to come to that belief, those stories will always get media attention. I've worked mostly in the private sector and a little in the public sector, and the idea that private industry is efficient and government is not just makes me laugh out loud. I can certainly find examples of government inefficiency but so what. [/quote]
=================================
Yes, many private companies are inefficient and waste money and have to charge more because of these things. However, they fall to the wayside as more competitive companies who are more efficient take their customers. The inefficient companies fail. That's what competition is all about. With government, however, single payer systems, etc., there's no competition. The customers are stuck with having to deal with an entity where the workers know their customers have no where else to go. There's little incentive to do better. I worked for a government agency once after working in private industry. I brought this money saving idea to my boss. His response was, "Why do you care what it costs?" That's government mentality.
Look at the Veterans' Administration. Veterans are dying because of VA incompetence and delays. They should shut it down and give vouchers to the veterans and let them shop private medical sources on their own. That way they will get the best care. From private industry.
-
Why put a hospital up in that crappy little town full of poor people? Feh. Those guys will definitely never be able to generate enough revenue to pay for it. And they CERTAINLY will not generate enough revenue in the next quarter to pay for it, and as you may or may not know, quarterly revenue is literally the only thing that matters.
So, fuck 'em. Let 'em die.
-
Why put a hospital up in that crappy little town full of poor people? Feh. Those guys will definitely never be able to generate enough revenue to pay for it. And they CERTAINLY will not generate enough revenue in the next quarter to pay for it, and as you may or may not know, quarterly revenue is literally the only thing that matters.
So, fuck 'em. Let 'em die.
Or travel a bit. There's ample compelling evidence that any complex procedures are far, far safer if done in hospitals with a big throughput.
Jeremy
-
Please show that, in the decade before Obamacare, healthcare insurance premiums became lower and medical bills became lower and healthcare outcomes improved.
As you've made no attempt to show that was the case, can we agree that in the decade before Obamacare, healthcare insurance premiums did not became lower and medical bills did not became lower?
1. You shop for insurance before you get sick.
Before you have received treatment, you don't know what the healthcare provider will choose to charge the healthcare insurer, or what your insurance company will refuse to pay.
As healthcare insurers change the policies several times a year, you need an attorney to work through hundreds of pages of legalise to figure out how the coverage changed.
3. Medicare and Medicaid have been part of the economy for decades. When the government pays for anything, it raises costs.
Evidently not.
…French NHI is more generous than what a “Medicare for all” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/#__sec1title) system would be like in the United States…
Life expectancy at birth:
2000, USA 77, France 79 years;
2010, USA 79 years, France 82 years.
Per capita Health expenditure:
2000, USA $4,818, France $2,209;
2010, USA $8,299, France $4,584 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP/countries?page=2).
-
Yes. But they've been outvoted ( lost the argument ).
Are you under the impression that the USA held something like the Scottish independence referendum but for healthcare?
-
... Life expectancy at birth:
2000, USA 77, France 79 years;
2010, USA 79 years, France 82 years...
But of course.
French are allowed to drink wine and have mistresses while Americans have to drown their sorrow of sexless marriage in beer and junk food ;-)
-
I've purchased healthcare from private companies for three decades and the costs have done nothing but skyrocket for three decades. If my taxes went up $10K per year for a single payer system (which they would not) I'd still save a bundle over the cost of private (for profit) insurance.
-
But of course.
French are allowed to drink wine and have mistresses while Americans have to drown their sorrow of sexless marriage in beer and junk food ;-)
Ha ha ha ha! Thanks for making me laugh.
-
As much as the American health system leaves much to be desired, and as much we might admire (or not) Canadian, Australian, Finnish, etc. socialized ones, one thing remains: social, political and economic systems can not be easily Frankenstein-ized, i.e., built by patching pieces, best of multiple worlds, into one.
"Lessons for the United States include the importance of government’s role in providing a statutory framework for universal health insurance (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447687/); recognition that piecemeal reform can broaden a partial program (like Medicare) to cover, eventually, the entire population; and understanding that universal coverage can be achieved without excluding private insurers from the supplementary insurance market."
-
The American system overall has been based on a brutal competition, survival of the fittest, law of the jungle, winner-takes-all, etc. None of which works well with the concern for the well-being for everyone. On the contrary, many of its components, like the healthcare system or penal system for that matter, are designed to penalize the losers, not to make their life easier.
-
And…?
-
And…?
And that explains why it is not easy to Frankenstein-ize systems. You can't have a component that is going against the very logic of the rest of the system. Like with transplants, a body tends to reject it.
-
So, you can't have government flood insurance?
So, you can't have government insurance of funds deposited in banks?
etc etc
-
You are smarter than that, Isaac.
Besides, in both of your examples, government insurance is rather limited or supplementary.
-
Besides, in both of your examples, government insurance is rather limited or supplementary.
Evidently your "can't have" is actually a "can have".
-
Evidently your "can't have" is actually a "can have".
Again, you are smarter than that, but apparently your can't help your hair-splitting persona.
-
Is name-calling the best argument you have?
-
Perhaps more pertinently, this issue revolves around the concept of equality. What do we mean by 'equality'?
Clearly, people are not equal with regard to talent, ability, intelligence and motivation, so I see no good reason why everyone should have equal material wealth, if wealth is a reward for a particular type of talent and motivation.
Rather, I see equality as applying to equal opportunity and equal access to fundamental needs for survival.
Some people appear to need great wealth to feed their bloated ego (one might even feel sorry for them). Others might be satisfied by having merely enough wealth to pursue their interests and take care of basic needs such as food, shelter and medical care.
I'm in that latter category. I feel secure, even though I have no private medical insurance. If I were living in America, with my current financial circumstances, I would probably feel very insecure. :(
-
By the same token, you can not claim that RR is the worst car just because you (or the majority of people) can not afford it.
You could if it cost more to make that it was sold for and was also quite unreliable - which many high end cars appear to be.
-
Competition lowers cost. It also drives up quality and innovation. Single-provider systems do the opposite.
Medicine is not a business and should not be regarded as one, it is a service.
There is no real competition in medicine. It is not something where you can go online and read reviews whilst having a coffee then decide which treatment centre to go to.
People are not interested in choice with medicine They simply want to get treated close to home and as soon as possible. All doctors and hospitals should be good.
If you are not good enough then you need binning.
There are other factors - If the best hospital was 60 miles away and this meant you wouldn't receive many if any visitors because of the time taken to travel and such like. Then you may not fare as well well because of low morale and feeling lonely.
-
Medicare and Medicaid have been part of the economy for decades. When the government pays for anything, it raises costs. Obamacare is accelerating the costs even faster. Look what has happened to tuition. Because of government student loans, tuition has gone up four times the CPI inflation rate, all because of too much money chasing too little goods. Same thing has been happening with medicine and will get worse.
The problem is the morally corrupt private part of the American system screwing the government over, not the Government being involved. Health care that is completely government provided in other countries is far cheaper than the broken private system you have, a lot cheaper. Which undermines your entire stance on health provision.
-
The discussion is too often framed in the context of freedom of choice (which pushes a lot of buttons among those who have been primed to react) or as "government-run" healthcare, implying that some civil servant is sitting there in the doctor's office with you deciding what pills to take, or when to let you die. That's not what a single-payer system is, of course, but we're dealing with faith-based beliefs, imo, so facts don't matter. This may be partly the result of clever marketing by the private insurance industry, who have managed to convince people it is a freedom of choice issue. Of course they would, wouldn't they? Interesting that the insurance industry should, in this context, be the "good' guy, when it is almost always universally vilified otherwise.
Only underlines how bonkers those protesters are.
There is also a knee-jerk belief that government-run enterprises always work out badly and cost too much. It's easy to come to that belief, those stories will always get media attention. I've worked mostly in the private sector and a little in the public sector, and the idea that private industry is efficient and government is not just makes me laugh out loud. I can certainly find examples of government inefficiency but so what. The fact that we don't hear about boondoggles in the private sector is only because no one can investigate and report on them as easily as you can in the public sector. Freedom of information doesn't apply to private companies. And anyway, no one regards those private boondoggles as things that affect them. Except for maybe those pesky financial meltdowns, but people find a way to blame that on government too.
Private companies are often appallingly run. Many 'successful' business people have a record of failures before making it and then afterwards too. Most businesses fail and very, very few last as long as a human, let alone country does, both reasons for saying that businesses are not a good example to follow.
What constantly fascinates me is how many people are more concerned with ideology than by trying to figure out what works best.
Absolutely. Ideologues and there are few on here are the glass in the ointment for creating a better world.
-
Which stills works out to be vastly cheaper.
Two reasons.
1. No-one is making a profit.
2. Everyone contributing a small amount [that they can afford] they can afford via taxes is actually huge amount of money that can pay for a free at source service.
Tell me what you think "profit" is, Jeremy.
If you need something as simple as profit explaining in this context, either you are not going to understand the answer or you are being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
I've also added point two of my quote back in which you edited out which addresses the following ignorant response
No that's what happens when you have a corrupt system.
British healthcare is free....
HA HA HA HA HA HA, OUCH, HA HA HA HA. ROTFL!
Sigh, do you really need reminding every time that it is free at source. The statement saying that you also conveniently missed out of my other quote.
And if you pay no taxes, it's simply free. So that's a huge amount of people, children, student, the elderly, the unemployed, the sick and so on.
Regardless, here and many other places there is no risk of bankruptcy, not getting treatment or dying because you cannot afford such a basic service.
When it comes to general health provision, the US is so remarkably backward compared to just about every other developed country and even some of those which are not.
A country that does not even look after its citizens health in my view is a third world country.
-
Tell me what you think 'profit' is, Jeremy.
If you need something as simple as profit explaining in this context, either you are not going to understand the answer or you are being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
In other words you haven't a clue what "profit" actually is. I guessed that from your statements, but this makes it clearer.
British healthcare is free
HA HA HA HA HA HA, OUCH, HA HA HA HA. Still ROTFL!
Evidently you've never quite understood that there's no free lunch.
-
I worked for a government agency once after working in private industry. I brought this money saving idea to my boss. His response was, "Why do you care what it costs?" That's government mentality.
Technically that was one person's mentality. The government is full of people doing very good jobs and working very hard to improve things. The problem is that these people don't fit in to the mentality that government is inefficient and "bad".
The cogent question was, what did you do with your idea? If you stopped at the first obstacle then you were part of the problem, not the solution.
I have worked in and for the federal government all my adult life and I see many examples of good people doing good things every day. It is a system that is equally far from being perfect and worthless.
-
Technically that was one person's mentality. The government is full of people doing very good jobs and working very hard to improve things. The problem is that these people don't fit in to the mentality that government is inefficient and "bad".
The cogent question was, what did you do with your idea? If you stopped at the first obstacle then you were part of the problem, not the solution.
I have worked in and for the federal government all my adult life and I see many examples of good people doing good things every day. It is a system that is equally far from being perfect and worthless.
I'm sorry but I wasn't part of the problem. I brought decades of experience in private industry including my own business to my job with the government. (NYC). I worked very hard to do the best job I could do. Many others did not care like I did. Many were just putting in their time, working just enough to get by. You cannot believe how many were incompetent. And you really had to be a crook to get fired like getting caught taking kickbacks. Government is nothing like private business. This is why the VA is a disaster and a national single payer health plan would be just as bad.
What also happens in government is after years of being ignored, years of dealing with the mediocre, "just put in your time" from so many, you grow disinterested in trying to change things. You become like the organization. You go along to get along. And that's the problem. But it's mainly caused because there's no profit motive, no owner who's around interested in trying to save money and making his business more efficient. There are no competitors keeping you sharp and on your feet. Their main concern was not to do anything that may get their name or the organization's name on the front page of the NY Times or NY Post in a negative way. Their "customers" do not come first. Their concerns are political, not business oriented.
-
But it's mainly caused because there's no profit motive, no owner who's around interested in trying to save money and making his business more efficient. There are no competitors keeping you sharp and on your feet.
How to make massive profits? Be an unregulated monopoly and charge whatever you like!
"Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1)
-
There's no lazy slackers in industry, that's for sure.
-
At one period of his younger life my wife's brother worked for the public sector as a surveyor. Came the day he was 'invited' to add to a claim by his 'superior' that the department was understaffed and overworked. He responded by remarking that he always had plenty of time to complete the Glasgow Herald crossword (quite tough in the pre-dumbing down era) every morning... That did not go down well, despite it being true. What was going down well, and about to go down much better, was that the upper levels were getting responsibility payments based on the size of their departments.
Shortly afterwards he left the public sector and set up in his own right and became very, very successful, thank you very much. It's in the mindset. For both options.
In the same area, I had opportunity to make an official protest about the high rates being applied to the studio I was renting. I was given a time and turned up in the town hall and waited my turn in the gallery to be called to state my case. When my turn came, I began to say my piece and realised, quite soon, that the entire table of heads that was meant to settle my case, was ignoring me in totality: not one face acknowledged my existence, said good morning, nor gazed into my eyes at any time. They were all in conversation with one another (the bench, not my eyes).
Naturally, I got absolutely nowhere with my plea.
Folks, in Scotland as anywhere else, unless you have organized and orchestrated money behind you, you don't exist.
Rob C
-
I came from a different generation. Around 12 of us won teacher's scholarships. You had to be in the top 5% of the population. Lazy public servants, I think that is an American fallacy.
Cheers,
-
… I think that is an American fallacy.
I think a stereotype won't stretch over 320 million people without breaking.
-
I think a stereotype won't stretch over 320 million people without breaking.
What in the hell doe's that mean?
Cheers,
-
Not an American fallacy.
-
"What in the hell doe's that mean? "
Please explain!
Cheers.
-
I came from a different generation. Around 12 of us won teacher's scholarships. You had to be in the top 5% of the population. Lazy public servants, I think that is an American fallacy.
Cheers,
Being initially clever doesn't mean you can't later settle into complacency and pension-driven objectives.
Rob C
-
Being initially clever doesn't mean you can't later settle into complacency and pension-driven objectives.
Rob C
Complacency, sorry but teenagers will swallow you up if you are not on your game. Teaching was a never ending challenge!
Cheers,
-
And then there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price_n_8173196.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price_n_8173196.html)
-
And then there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price_n_8173196.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price_n_8173196.html)
America: freedom and opportunity for all*
* offer may vary.
-
And another: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-drug-price-cycloserine-1.3237868 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-drug-price-cycloserine-1.3237868)
Reminds me of when those Enron scum started jacking up the price of electricity in California, just because they could. One of the reasons humans started collecting into groups was to protect themselves from predators. I wonder why we sometimes remove regulations that protect us. Who benefits from that?
Free-market competition didn't do much to lower prices in these cases, so some mechanism appears to have broken down. I don't think it's a good sign that our culture can't protect us from this kind of behaviour.
-
Here is one plausible explanation of what is going on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
They predict it could only a few decades left for us.
-
Complacency, sorry but teenagers will swallow you up if you are not on your game. Teaching was a never ending challenge!
Cheers,
I know Tom, and my teacher daughter tells me she sees it and fights it every day.
Why does it exist? Easy: political correctness. Teachers can't tell it like it is anymore. Cellphones in class: she can't take them off the little buggers because if she does, puts them all on a table, when it's time to collect them after the period, she will be accused of having broken them. No, not joking. Being in a class is considered as good as having worked in that class.
School successes or otherwise: she teaches in a well-regarded city school; there are several non-indigenous, non-white kids in every class she deals with, and some do better than others. When it comes to streaming them into Higher or Lower English grades for the next year she often, at parent-teacher nights, gets indignant Asian parents complaining that their child has been relegated to the Lower division, that it mars their future chances, and they ask why. On asking which language the family speaks at home, they reply Hindi, Urdu or whatever. Reluctantly, she has to rest her case and therefore face accusations of racism. How can she, in all honesty, and with that child's future results in mind, send it up to a level she knows perfectly well that it hasn't a snowball's chance of hacking? Better a pass at Lower grade than abysmal failure at Higher. Unlike on the Indian sub-continent, there's no glory in "Failed BSc" on your UK CV!
It's the trouble with so much in the last forty or so years: everybody has to be perceived a winner and as equally good at everything as everybody else, the unachievable hights of fantasy. But, 'tis how it has become.
Atlas Shrugged comes to mind, and where this might easily lead us.
Rob C
-
I love Atlas Shrugged. They idea of a bunch of CEOs living in a far away valley starving to death because they can't actually do anything practical fills me with joy.
Assuming that the profit motive will solve all problems is naive.
-
I know Tom, and my teacher daughter tells me she sees it and fights it every day.
Why does it exist? Easy: political correctness. Teachers can't tell it like it is anymore. Cellphones in class: she can't take them off the little buggers because if she does, puts them all on a table, when it's time to collect them after the period, she will be accused of having broken them. No, not joking. Being in a class is considered as good as having worked in that class.
School successes or otherwise: she teaches in a well-regarded city school; there are several non-indigenous, non-white kids in every class she deals with, and some do better than others. When it comes to streaming them into Higher or Lower English grades for the next year she often, at parent-teacher nights, gets indignant Asian parents complaining that their child has been relegated to the Lower division, that it mars their future chances, and they ask why. On asking which language the family speaks at home, they reply Hindi, Urdu or whatever. Reluctantly, she has to rest her case and therefore face accusations of racism. How can she, in all honesty, and with that child's future results in mind, send it up to a level she knows perfectly well that it hasn't a snowball's chance of hacking? Better a pass at Lower grade than abysmal failure at Higher. Unlike on the Indian sub-continent, there's no glory in "Failed BSc" on your UK CV!
It's the trouble with so much in the last forty or so years: everybody has to be perceived a winner and as equally good at everything as everybody else, the unachievable hights of fantasy. But, 'tis how it has become.
Atlas Shrugged comes to mind, and where this might easily lead us.
Rob C
Wow. Stuff like that is going on in America. I didn't realize you had the same problem over there.
-
And another: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-drug-price-cycloserine-1.3237868 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-drug-price-cycloserine-1.3237868)
Reminds me of when those Enron scum started jacking up the price of electricity in California, just because they could. One of the reasons humans started collecting into groups was to protect themselves from predators. I wonder why we sometimes remove regulations that protect us. Who benefits from that?
Free-market competition didn't do much to lower prices in these cases, so some mechanism appears to have broken down. I don't think it's a good sign that our culture can't protect us from this kind of behaviour.
We were protected against these corrupt people at Enron. The people who did those things went to jail, committed suicide, lost their money or just plain died early. These things happened because they violated regulations and civil and criminal laws.
So what's your point?
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2011-12-01/enron-ten-years-on-where-they-are-now
-
These things happened because they violated regulations and civil and criminal laws.
So what's your point?
Do damage is less damaging if it's legal?
If they hadn't violated any laws, would you find their behavior acceptable?
-
I wonder why we sometimes remove regulations that protect us. Who benefits from that?
Follow the money.
If corporations can make more money with deregulation, that is what they will push for.
-
In these more enlightened times we fine banks a small percentage of the profits they made with their illegal scams, and we don't jail anyone.
Enron was the exception. And corporate America moved quickly and decisively to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
And here we are!
-
Do damage is less damaging if it's legal?
If they hadn't violated any laws, would you find their behavior acceptable?
No, their behaviors would not be acceptable. That's why we have those laws. The original poster complained that these people committed fraud without penalty. He was mistaken. Enron officials paid severe penalties.
-
In these more enlightened times we fine banks a small percentage of the profits they made with their illegal scams, and we don't jail anyone.
Enron was the exception. And corporate America moved quickly and decisively to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
And here we are!
Write President Obama. It is his Dept of Justice that prosecutes. Either he's in bed with the banks or there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.
-
Enron officials paid severe penalties.
Quick now. Name a second case.
-
Write President Obama. It is his Dept of Justice that prosecutes. Either he's in bed with the banks or there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.
Yes. Obama is the only president that has ever been, so all of history is his fault.
-
"What in the hell doe's that mean? "
Please explain!
You generalized one person's opinion into a national stereotype.
-
Write President Obama.
President Obama is not the bogeyman, that's for children.
"The crisis definitely happened on their watch," said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University who advises the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. "This is eight years into the Bush administration (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). There was a lot of time to deal with it."
-
Yes. Obama is the only president that has ever been, so all of history is his fault.
Obama has been president some the 2008 shock to the economy caused mainly by najor real estate and bank finagling. Yet Obama prosecuted none of the culprits except for monetary fines. So yes. He did nothing.
-
Yes. Well, to be exact, the failure to prosecute those particular criminals occurred on his watch.
And the rest of the criminals on other presidents' watches? I feel confident that:
- when a republican was a president, the justice department was a bunch of impossible foot draggers
- when a democrat was president, the president himself simply lacked the will, the guts, to enforce the law of the land
-
If you want a wonderful exposé of the entire sub-prime scandal and how and why it happened, ran for so long, you simply must catch a film called Inside Job.
Of particular interest to LuLa photographers, it starts with the Icelandic banks, and in getting there, you have the pleasure of some breathtaking Icelandic imagery.
Beauty apart, you eventually learn about the various U.S. university lecturers who were advisers to various governmental heads, how they remain in position, their monetary philosophy still being sold to students and govt. so much later, and, basically, the unbelievable crap shoot that banking and the markets actually appears to be.
I wish I had that video as my own, but I only borrowed it, twice!
Rob C
P.S.
William B. Williams, author of this book, is an American gentleman I know who spends time here; his book, Future Perfect, is very explanatory of the American electoral system and why it holds the U.S. in the vice from which it appears unable to release itself.
This link is relevant to the book:
http://www.albertsuckow.com/future-perfect-present-empowerment-william-williams/
-
Of course the banks and real estate brokers gave out these mortgages because Congress insisted upon it so the poor could live in homes like other people. So people who couldn't support the mortgages are given them without any need to show capability to repay. So maybe Obama didn't prosecute because it would have embarrassed too many people in Congress as well as all t h e truth came out. So the Democrat Congress told Obama to forget it.
-
I'm only speaking from my experience. As a teacher you can't be lazy, students will chew you up and spit you out.
I'm pretty sure that is true for most public servants. Cutbacks have made sure that if you are not pulling your weight you will lose your job.
I went through three restructures before the global financial crisis caught up with me on the fourth occasion. Luckily I had some good Superannuation.
My last job as a Teacher Illustrator went from 28 positions to just 3, just saying.
Cheers,
-
Of course the banks and real estate brokers gave out these mortgages because Congress insisted upon it so the poor could live in homes like other people.
'The Big Short' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202291.html)
-
Here is one plausible explanation of what is going on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
They predict it could only a few decades left for us.
Interesting article, Petrus. I'm sure that climate-change alarmists will find fuel in that study to support their opinions, because of the conclusions that over-exploitation of natural resources, (in combination with economic stratification or economic inequality), might be the cause of the eventual collapse of our civilization, unless we take effective action to avoid it.
However, when reading this study, I was reminded of the following article I read some time ago in which the author calculated that solar panels alone, if they were to cover the entire, uninhabited part of the Sahara Desert, could provide 46 times the amount of energy the world currently consumes.
Of course, some of that energy would be lost during transmission over long distances, although current HVDC lines have a very low transmission loss. Also, for security reasons it wouldn't be wise to concentrated all the world's power sources in one location. The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs. There are many deserts on the planet, and large areas of arid and sparsely populated land, including vacant roof areas on millions of buildings.
As solar technology improves we could theoretically produce hundreds of times the amount of energy we currently use, and in a sustainable and affordable manner.
Since energy supplies are directly related to the average material wealth of all of us, (nothing can be produced without expenditure of energy), the future is very bright. Every person on the planet could (theoretically and technically) become a millionaire, if we apply the latest, innovative technology.
We are limited only by our energy supplies and our imagination. Energy from the sun is huge. Unfortunately, our imagination might be lacking. ;)
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=3149
"the unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 630 terawatts total power. The Earth's current energy consumption rate is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric). This measure arrives at a multiplier of 46 times the area needed (to provide all the current energy demands of the entire human race)."
-
Isaac: The government is doing the same thing they did to cause the real estate bubble that burst in 2008. Sure the banks and others played games, basically to protect bad mortgages they gave out. But those mortgages would not have been done if Congress stayed out of it in the first place. Instead Congress set it up as they are doing again to give loans out to people who can't afford it. Even Liberal rep Barney Frank said, "It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/underwriting-the-next-housing-crisis.html
-
No, their behaviors would not be acceptable. That's why we have those laws. The original poster complained that these people committed fraud without penalty. He was mistaken. Enron officials paid severe penalties.
So you're saying that we have laws that forbid damaging behavior.
Allowing to have people to pay big money for life-saving therapies isn't a damaging behavior?
-
The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs.
Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).
Just imagine the people you'd need to hire, armed with big brooms and powerful fans! Far better go nuke and if it goes wrong, well goodnight, and maybe the virgins will turn out to have been realistic after all. A thought: perhaps they might all be PC activists, so probably no luck there. Back to the casting couch.
You see? There's always a bright lining to stormy clouds!
Rob
-
Here is one plausible explanation of what is going on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
They predict it could only a few decades left for us.
Plus ça change.
The capitalist system does much the same thing on albeit on a much faster cycle. All because humans are involved, boom and bust is inevitable because of greed, stupidity and completely ignoring lessons of the past. Rather than try and prevent such things, governments should just accept that is what will always happen and learn to deal with it. Rather than trying to continually patch an ever expanding balloon with promises that cannot be kept.
-
In other words you haven't a clue what "profit" actually is. I guessed that from your statements, but this makes it clearer.
HA HA HA HA HA HA, OUCH, HA HA HA HA. Still ROTFL!
Evidently you've never quite understood that there's no free lunch.
Misreading, misquoting and ignoring anything that you do not like to suit your own agenda as usual I see.
-
We are limited only by our energy supplies and our imagination. Energy from the sun is huge. Unfortunately, our imagination might be lacking. ;)
Solar power generating roads are being developed by a few people. It's a very clever solution to the problem as power production and distribution are the very same thing. Not to mention that smart roads would be transformative to society in the way computers were.
Working out the tech will be a challenge obviously, but nothing compared to the even more difficult task of changing how things are currently done with all the vast sums of money behind the vested interests that will be threatened by something like this.
-
Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).
The point being made is not that solar panels should be built in the Sahara, but that more energy than we need can be obtained from such a small area. I'm sure there are single oil/coal production areas in the world that are bigger than the area needed for solar power to supply the entire world's needs.
-
It's a very clever solution to the problem as power production and distribution are the very same thing.
Too bad they don't work (which doesn't means they don't produce electricity).
-
Sure the banks and others played games, basically to protect bad mortgages they gave out.
Investment banks are not in the business of giving out mortgages.
"Whether the true reason that led the drive to lower underwriting standards for US sub-prime mortgages was unacceptable commercial practices or flawed housing policies and the distortion of the market by the operations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae … these arguments are merely capable of explaining what triggered the crisis (https://books.google.com/books?id=oZMgAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA108&ots=GeVaDA_oMv&dq=%22but%20they%20followed%20rather%20than%20led%20Wall%20Street.%22&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q=%22what%20triggered%20the%20crisis%22&f=false).
…
However, they can neither account for the global dimensions of the crisis nor for its magnitude. The misuse of financial innovation … meant that the right channels opened up for US mortgage-backed securities regardless of whether the issuers were investment banks or the GSEs. As a result, US sub-prime loans' risk was distributed to and 'infected' a very large number of non-US financial institutions, which because of herding had largely taken one-way bets on the continuous rise of the US housing market. The ensuing generalized loss of confidence … and not the sub-prime mortgage crisis explains why the 2008 turmoil was a true Global Financial Crisis and not merely a serious shock to the US financial system."
But those mortgages would not have been done if Congress stayed out of it in the first place.
But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages — belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html) — because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses.
Even Liberal rep Barney Frank said…
What he actually said to Lawrence Kudlow is -- "I've been wrong about things, we all have been; but I really feel good about having been right about saying (http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-interview-with-barney-frank-on.html) -- It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”
(I have not found anything that shows Barney Frank previously made a statement like that.)
-
Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).
Just imagine the people you'd need to hire, armed with big brooms and powerful fans! Far better go nuke and if it goes wrong, well goodnight, and maybe the virgins will turn out to have been realistic after all. A thought: perhaps they might all be PC activists, so probably no luck there. Back to the casting couch.
You see? There's always a bright lining to stormy clouds!
Rob
Rob,
You have missed the point, as Jeremy mentioned in post #266.
This is what I wrote:
"The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs. There are many deserts on the planet, and large areas of arid and sparsely populated land, including vacant roof areas on millions of buildings."
I imagine if any country decided to build a large solar farm in a desert, the project would need a water supply, if for no other reason than to wash the dust off the solar panels. The solar farm would therefore be ideally located near an oasis or underground water supply. Alternatively, the same route used for the underground HVDC cables to transmit the electricity from the desert to the cities, could be used for underground water pipes. The water used to wash the dust off the solar panels could be used to irrigate certain food crops. Waste not, want not. ;)
The dangers of bandits and terrorists are a separate issue which can affect any source of power.
-
Rob,
You have missed the point, as Jeremy mentioned in post #266.
This is what I wrote:
"The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs. There are many deserts on the planet, and large areas of arid and sparsely populated land, including vacant roof areas on millions of buildings."
I imagine if any country decided to build a large solar farm in a desert, the project would need a water supply, if for no other reason than to wash the dust off the solar panels. The solar farm would therefore be ideally located near an oasis or underground water supply. Alternatively, the same route used for the underground HVDC cables to transmit the electricity from the desert to the cities, could be used for underground water pipes. The water used to wash the dust off the solar panels could be used to irrigate certain food crops. Waste not, want not. ;)
The dangers of bandits and terrorists are a separate issue which can affect any source of power.
Rubbish, Ray! You're just shotgunning your reply in order to avoid the literal pitfalls from which you now choose to divert attention!
Worse yet, and perhaps slightly your responsibilty for eschewing the cause of the 'clean air' lobby, climate change will increase rainfall in years to come in currently more 'normal' areas, making existing roof-based solar power even less reliable. Would the deserts of Africa move northwards across the Mediterranean, converting Spain and France into solar energy farms (imagine what the local farmers, truckers, charcuterie merchants would do with that propostion, not to mention the winegrowers!) or simply move southwards over the rain forests, inspiring the sale of rubber dinghies to even newer heights? It is long said that Africa already begins on the southern shores of France. The changes will, of course, go both north and southwardly: Nature loves equilibrium. Our friends in your adopted part of this topsy-turvy planet will, of course, have long left their scented isle after pledging and celebrating absolute twindom with the Namib.
Interesting to realise that the polar bear will roam the Pyrenees, the seal imitate the actions of the salmon and that little old Man will learn again to make the bow and arrow, a talent once reserved to childhood.
I hope we can shoot all of this on lightweight MF with optional additional DR, bought at the local branch of Comet. There should, by then, be an ample supply of "free-at-point-of-use" hydro-electric power with which to energize our fun...
;-)
Rob C
-
The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users.
Just think of the copper wiring costs.
-
The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users.
Just think of the copper wiring costs.
I can think of at least two multi-nationals doing exactly that!
;-)
Rob C
-
[The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users. Just think of the copper wiring costs.]
I can think of at least two multi-nationals doing exactly that!
;-)
Rob C
Could you tell who they are?
-
Could you tell who they are?
Of the many: Rio Tinto and Glencore. They are big in minerals in general. Why?
Rob C
-
Of the many: Rio Tinto and Glencore. They are big in minerals in general. Why?
Rob C
Both are mining and commodity multinational: do they are investing in solar roadways or Sahara solar panel powerplants?
-
Both are mining and commodity multinational: do they are investing in solar roadways or Sahara solar panel powerplants?
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about your reference to COPPER, as in wire!
;-)
Rob C
-
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about your reference to COPPER, as in wire!
;-)
Rob C
Sorry, I didn't get it :D
-
Rubbish, Ray! You're just shotgunning your reply in order to avoid the literal pitfalls from which you now choose to divert attention!
Worse yet, and perhaps slightly your responsibilty for eschewing the cause of the 'clean air' lobby, climate change will increase rainfall in years to come in currently more 'normal' areas, making existing roof-based solar power even less reliable. Would the deserts of Africa move northwards across the Mediterranean, converting Spain and France into solar energy farms (imagine what the local farmers, truckers, charcuterie merchants would do with that propostion, not to mention the winegrowers!) or simply move southwards over the rain forests, inspiring the sale of rubber dinghies to even newer heights? It is long said that Africa already begins on the southern shores of France. The changes will, of course, go both north and southwardly: Nature loves equilibrium. Our friends in your adopted part of this topsy-turvy planet will, of course, have long left their scented isle after pledging and celebrating absolute twindom with the Namib.
Interesting to realise that the polar bear will roam the Pyrenees, the seal imitate the actions of the salmon and that little old Man will learn again to make the bow and arrow, a talent once reserved to childhood.
I hope we can shoot all of this on lightweight MF with optional additional DR, bought at the local branch of Comet. There should, by then, be an ample supply of "free-at-point-of-use" hydro-electric power with which to energize our fun...
;-)
Rob C
You've missed the point again, Rob. This diversion is in connection with a scientific study which was mentioned by Petrus in post #239. In the conclusions of that study it was mentioned that the most significant factor that could likely cause the complete collapse of a civilization, as has happened a number of times in the past, is the over-exploitation of natural resources in combination with the 'social stratification' of significant income inequality.
I agree with such conclusions, and whilst I don't agree that current and predicted future levels of CO2 are a cause for alarm, I do think there is justified alarm about the environmental effects of the industrial processes that generate the CO2, such as lots of smog in China that affects people's health, and acid rain which is caused by sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides emitted by coal-fired power stations, but not by CO2 which is a clear and odourless gas essential for all life.
I also think that without the political alarm generated about the potential catastrophic effects of rising CO2 levels, we would continue exploiting fossil fuel reserves to the point where they became very scarce and expensive, which, in combination with the existing social stratification of income inequality, could result in a civilization collapse.
Fortunately, the political alarm generated about CO2 levels over the past few decades has resulted in significant development in solar-generated electricity to the point where the cost of unsubsidised solar electricity is now on a par with the cost of unsubsidised electricity from burning coal.
In Australia we've set a world record for solar energy efficiency, at 40%. By comparison, the efficiency of coal-fired power stations averages at less than 40%, ranging from about 33% to 37%. Only the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power stations reach a higher efficiency than 40%, but such power stations are very expensive to build.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/unsw-researchers-set-world-record-solar-energy-efficiency
It is reasonable to suppose that solar panels will become even more efficient and more affordable in the future, as indeed digital cameras have. I guess my fascination with solar power is connected to my fascination with digital cameras. They have something in common. A digital camera's sensor is in effect a solar panel, converting light into electricity, even when the light is poor. (Very appropriate for a photographic analogy on a photographic forum, don't you think ;) )
One myth about solar power is that the sun has to shine directly on the panels for electricity to be produced. This is no longer true. Solar panels can be designed to generate electricity on the cloudy and foggy days which are the norm in places such as the U.K. and St Petersburg.
The future is bright. You can all rest in peace. ;)
-
Totally OT, but anyway: the use and importance solar energy is certainly rising as the panels get more efficient, but the big problem still is that there is no cheap and efficient way to store electricity. In countries like Finland we need most of the electricity in winter, when it is dark 20 hours a day and solar panels are next to useless. On coldest days also windmills stand still. So we fire up the coal power plants, which also means double investment for power generation. The only way to store power in practice are water reservoirs, which in turn are opposed by the greens...
-
Ray, there are several points you make that I'm "missing"!
It strikes me that you both agree with, and disagree with the concept of the reality of global warming, all at the same time! That is truly cool, only to be expected from a gentleman who is photographed sitting beside tigers.
Such a datum line for discussion leaves me lost, perplexed and totally wordless in battle: perhaps you have won? ;-)
Do you have shares in VW by the way? I never have had, but if I had bought one of the cars I wouldn't be unhappy and about to sue: I'd be delighted that so many others could now be in a position to buy such a machine at far better price! Including myself, were I a VW owner, next time around! In the end, whatever official emission figures claim, I don't for a moment think anyone seriously gave them a toss: it was image and perceived quality that made folks buy. Roping Lambo into the public debate, as tv has, is a further example of media bullshit: who in their right mind thinks such buyers are concerned about either economy or ecology! Anyway, the only Lambos to have diesels, AFAIK, are their tractors. Maybe farmers will sue instead.
Oh well, off for a shower and some shopping for veggies and fruit!
Ciao,
Rob
-
Totally OT, but anyway: the use and importance solar energy is certainly rising as the panels get more efficient, but the big problem still is that there is no cheap and efficient way to store electricity. In countries like Finland we need most of the electricity in winter, when it is dark 20 hours a day and solar panels are next to useless. On coldest days also windmills stand still. So we fire up the coal power plants, which also means double investment for power generation. The only way to store power in practice are water reservoirs, which in turn are opposed by the greens...
Would a solar energy source a couple of thousand km south of Finland be useful during those dark winters? ;)
HVDC transmission lines are continuing to get better and more efficient with lower transmission losses (about 3.5% per 1,000 km). It seems we're now into Ultra-High-Voltage Direct-Current transmission.
The following site provides some details of the longest HVDC and UHVDC transmission lines currently in operation.
http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-longest-power-transmission-lines-4167964/
This is not entirely off topic. The total wealth of everyone is directly related to the true cost of energy, including setting a price on externalities such as environmental damage and health consequences of noxious gases.
Cheap, sustainable energy supplies can translate to more affordable health care for everyone, even in America. ;)
-
Ray, there are several points you make that I'm "missing"!
It strikes me that you both agree with, and disagree with the concept of the reality of global warming, all at the same time! That is truly cool, only to be expected from a gentleman who is photographed sitting beside tigers.
Rob.
The explanation lies in the ethical dilemma, 'when is a lie justified?' This is similar to the ethical dilemma of photographic manipulation. If the intention and purpose of the photograph is to accurately record a scene for journalistic or forensic uses, then manipulation of the original photographic recording, which is equivalent to lying, is obviously unethical.
Likewise, if the purpose of climate-change research is simply to understand the climate change processes at a theoretical and unbiased level, then exaggeration of the degree of certainty about the processes is unethical, unless such exaggeration (lies) can be justified in relation to another issue.
In the case of photography, manipulation can be justified for 'fine art' purposes, which might attempt to entertain, inspire, tell a story, create an enigma, express the photographer's personal feelings, etc.
In the case of climate science, any certainty about the disastrous consequences of rising CO2 levels is a lie from a purely scientific perspective. However, from a broader perspective of the survival of future generations who might be confronted with a disastrous depletion of fossil fuel resources, any lies which motivate us to prepare in advance for such 'over-exploitation' of resources, might be justified.
One of the possible negative effects of being motivated to do the right thing through incorrect or biased information, is the inefficiency of the process. It would be better if people were able to respond to rational and sensible advice and objectives. However, the reality seems to be that most people are not sufficiently motivated by merely sensible and rational arguments. They need religious zeal. They need 'carrot and stick' inducements. They seem to need the fear of eternal damnation in Hell to get them to behave properly. Hope that's all clear? ;)
-
Lying is a slippery slope. You're better than that. You have to convince people with the truth.
-
Lying is a slippery slope. You're better than that. You have to convince people with the truth.
Lying on a slippery slope, clearly my own fault, was one of the principal reasons that I gave up skiing.
And trust me, that's the truth, creative fiction notwithstanding.
Rob C
-
I've just watched Viola Davis on The Ellen DeGeneres Show talking about her Golden Globe success.
She also talked about her charity connection.
"Ambassador Viola Davis, and (sic) raised more than $4.6 million from shoppers throughout 1,300 Safeway family of stores, as well as through online contributions, to support eradicating childhood hunger in the United States."
She supports the Feeding America charity, http://www.feedingamerica.org
There seems to be a disconnect between "America the world's leading economy" and bankrupting medical patients and needing charities to raise funds for hungry children.
Cheers,
-
There seems to be a disconnect between…
There's more than one way to organize a society.
-
There's more than one way to organize a society.
As I said in an earlier post, it is a question of what is working? In Australia you don't have to worry about going broke paying for your medical bills, there is no need for food banks. Yes, there are dysfunctional families that need support, but that is another question.
Why can't Americans see that their system is broken? Has ideology taken over!
Cheers,
-
Too bad they don't work (which doesn't means they don't produce electricity).
Would you claim any new tech still being developed as useless?
Solar panels most certainly do work and can generate more than enough electricity for our needs, that's not the issue. Making them usable as a road surface for this particular solution is the tricky bit and taking into account other factors like access to other services, such as gas/sewage are the obstacle to overcome.
The major problem is the [very rich] people who have a lot to lose by this new way of sourcing power and those who like to sneer, rather than contribute.
-
The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users.
Sigh! Why are people taking this example so literally?
The Shara figure is simply to show how much energy is out there for the taking. It's not to suggest that's how you organise the collection of power. You simply use smaller arrays more locally.
Solar roadways are simply a way of distributing the collection and solving the distribution problem in one go.
There are other options, use motorway real estate for collecting with arrays above or next to them such as this Korean example (http://road.cc/content/news/148063-south-korean-solar-powered-bike-lane-whizzes-cyclists-along-six-lane-motorway). Though the idea of cyclists being in centre of highway seems a bit dumb from an access/egress point of view.
Just think of the copper wiring costs.
Do you think power gets from current power stations to homes and businesses all over the country without power cables?
-
Totally OT, but anyway: the use and importance solar energy is certainly rising as the panels get more efficient, but the big problem still is that there is no cheap and efficient way to store electricity. In countries like Finland we need most of the electricity in winter, when it is dark 20 hours a day and solar panels are next to useless. On coldest days also windmills stand still. So we fire up the coal power plants, which also means double investment for power generation. The only way to store power in practice are water reservoirs, which in turn are opposed by the greens...
Tesla's UPS/battery is a start of a solution to that problem. (http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/powerwall) I have to say I am tempted by that as not only is about the same price as a high end UPS for your computer system, but is a UPS for your entire house.
This problem, like many other problems is one that gets little attention with when there is already a current solution, i.e. coal/gas fired power stations.
If or when these become less feasible for whatever reason, suddenly people will be trying to solve that problem. Or there could be a dramatic tipping point when a new tech is invented and old tech is very quickly replaced by a very new way of working. Digital photography and film being the obvious example for users of this forum. :D
A new kind of battery could change everything for example. There is a lot of interest in that from other areas, laptop and phone manufacturers for example, Apple's hydrogen cell. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11818151/Revealed-the-first-hydrogen-powered-battery-that-will-charge-your-Apple-iPhone-for-a-week.html).
-
Lying on a slippery slope, clearly my own fault, was one of the principal reasons that I gave up skiing.
;D ;D
-
The explanation lies in the ethical dilemma, 'when is a lie justified?'
Likewise, if the purpose of climate-change research is simply to understand the climate change processes at a theoretical and unbiased level, then exaggeration of the degree of certainty about the processes is unethical, unless such exaggeration (lies) can be justified in relation to another issue.
Lying is a slippery slope. You're better than that. You have to convince people with the truth.
When people say that trying to do something about man-made climate change is a waste of time because it doesn't exist, I just think that it doesn't actually matter in one sense. Why? Simple, there is no downside to making the world less polluted and more pleasant place to live.
-
As I said in an earlier post, it is a question of what is working? In Australia you don't have to worry about going broke paying for your medical bills, there is no need for food banks. Yes, the are dysfunctional families that need support, but that is another question.
Why can't Americans see that their system is broken? Has ideology taken over!
There's more than one way to organize a society.
You're assuming that the balance of outcomes you find acceptable is the only balance of outcomes anyone should find acceptable.
-
Simple, there is no downside to making the world less polluted and more pleasant place to live.
Nonsense. There would be costs; and the diverted resources may have been used in other ways to benefit more people. Decision making with imperfect knowledge is … imperfect.
-
Nonsense. There would be costs; and the diverted resources may have been used in other ways to benefit more people. Decision making with imperfect knowledge is … imperfect.
There is no downside to making the world more pleasant, as by definition the planet is better than it was before. The fact that a very small minority of people may make less money that before isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
-
There is no downside to making the world more pleasant, as by definition the planet is better than it was before.
More pleasant for whom? At what cost to others?
(As before: there would be costs and the diverted resources may have been used in other ways to benefit more people.)
-
...... there is no downside to making the world less polluted and more pleasant place to live.
More pleasant for whom? At what cost to others?
(As before: there would be costs and the diverted resources may have been used in other ways to benefit more people.)
Isaac has a point. Any increase in energy costs has to be paid for. There's no free lunch, as Russ would say. If we push through measures as a result of alarm and panic, to build expensive new power plants, whilst making redundant the existing coal-fired plants that could still be functional for many years into the future, then we are wasting resources, unless the new energy sources are in reality more efficient and the electricity cheaper than that produced by the older coal-fired plants.
A fundamental principle of economics is that one can't spend the same energy twice, just as one can't spend the same money twice. One always has to prioritize. The money spent on a new solar farm could instead have been spent on alleviating poverty in 3rd world countries, or even on alleviating poverty in America. ;)
-
Nope; better fix the problems now, if it's not already too late, than pay lip service to the environment but continue to rape it instead.
London and Glasgow were dying under smog back in the 40s and 50s; when coal was replaced for many uses the smogs vanished. Look at Paris today, China, what more does it take to open eyes?
Rob C
-
More pleasant for whom? At what cost to others?
(As before: there would be costs and the diverted resources may have been used in other ways to benefit more people.)
EVERYONE benefits from a less polluted and poisoned world.
EVERYONE benefits from sea levels not rising.
EVERYONE benefits from the competition for limited energy being got rid of.
In fact I cannot think of a way of making life better for the most number of people than to have clean local [and therefore very cheap] energy production everywhere. This would also have a knock on effect of solving many other issues, not to mention that limited resources are the main reason for most conflict.
-
Isaac has a point. Any increase in energy costs has to be paid for. There's no free lunch, as Russ would say. If we push through measures as a result of alarm and panic, to build expensive new power plants, whilst making redundant the existing coal-fired plants that could still be functional for many years into the future, then we are wasting resources, unless the new energy sources are in reality more efficient and the electricity cheaper than that produced by the older coal-fired plants.
A bigger waste of resources/money would be continuing to invest with old methods with a whole host of serious problems, which are not even cheaper.
A fundamental principle of economics is that one can't spend the same energy twice, just as one can't spend the same money twice. One always has to prioritize. The money spent on a new solar farm could instead have been spent on alleviating poverty in 3rd world countries, or even on alleviating poverty in America. ;)
Except that will never ever happen. It doesn't even happen now without lots of money being spent on solar farms. Cheaper energy will however have a much greater impact on such things anyway.
-
EVERYONE benefits from a less polluted and poisoned world.
EVERYONE benefits from sea levels not rising.
EVERYONE benefits from the competition for limited energy being got rid of.
In fact I cannot think of a way of making life better for the most number of people than to have clean local [and therefore very cheap] energy production everywhere. This would also have a knock on effect of solving many other issues, not to mention that limited resources are the main reason for most conflict.
Saw a spot on France 24 this evening; Jakarta is already below water-level in some places including some of the most expensive real estate as well as poor. They are crying out for attention to rising waters. Sympathy for the Maldives?
It's very real.
Rob C
-
I think the positions have changed slightly.
Nobody denies any longer that the temperature is rising and that sea level is going up. The denial now is that it's caused by human activities.
Interestingly, the other side is moving toward the position that, while it's caused by human activities, it's too late and there's nothing to be done about it.
So, in terms of actual pragmatism, the two sides are very close: do nothing beyond seek high ground, and hold on tight.
-
I think the positions have changed slightly.
Nobody denies any longer that the temperature is rising and that sea level is going up. The denial now is that it's caused by human activities.
Interestingly, the other side is moving toward the position that, while it's caused by human activities, it's too late and there's nothing to be done about it.
So, in terms of actual pragmatism, the two sides are very close: do nothing beyond seek high ground, and hold on tight.
I fear that you are probably right. Apart from food problems, think of the money that's going to drown with all that prime seaside property. Where wlll all those millions of peole go? Will they just riot and try to get themselves squatted into higher properties? Maybe that's why there's little appetite for gun control: we're gonna need them thangs real soon...
On the other hand, if half of that volcanic island in the Canaries does fall off, will it matter about higher ground unless it's up the Andes?
Rob C
-
Nope; better fix the problems now, if it's not already too late, than pay lip service to the environment but continue to rape it instead.
London and Glasgow were dying under smog back in the 40s and 50s; when coal was replaced for many uses the smogs vanished. Look at Paris today, China, what more does it take to open eyes?
Rob C
We have fixed the problem, Rob. We've introduced emission controls through legislation and cap-and-trade policies, resulting in new technologies to reduce virtually all the harmful emissions that were a common problem in the past. A modern coal plant using the latest technology produces miniscule amounts of air pollution. The processes of mining the coal, and consequent environmental damage are another issue.
The air pollution in China is partly due to their use of cheap, old-fashioned coal-fired plants without adequate emission controls, in addition to the increasing amount of noxious emissions from petrol and diesel cars as increasing numbers of Chinese become able to afford a car.
However, modern coal-fired power stations are not good at eliminating that clean and pure gas called CO2, which is essential for all life and is greatly appreciated by plant life in particular, which usually flourishes in elevated levels of CO2.
The following article provides some very detailed information on this aspect of CO2.
http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/Agriculture/CO2FoodBenefit(2013).pdf
Here's a summary that I've extracted for you, in case you can't be bothered reading the whole article, Rob. ;)
“The rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is
progressively increasing food production and total biological output, in a world of otherwise
diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer.
It is a means of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically
active ecosystems. The effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed
countries are, and will be, sharing equally,” for “the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a
universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we all can reckon for the
foreseeable future” (Wittwer, 1995).
To give a perspective on the scale of these benefits, the researches have attempted to calculate the monetary value of such increased agricultural production which is directly attributable to increased CO2 levels. They estimate that between 1961 and 2011, the increased value of crops worldwide, directly attributable to increased CO2 levels above pre-industrial levels, was 3.2 trillion dollars.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the continuing benefits of elevated levels of CO2 between 2012 and 2050 will amount to an additional 9.8 trillion dollars worth of agricultural production.
Mind you, that's only about 250 billion dollars worth of food per year, but probably sufficient in quantity to provide the additional food that the millions of undernourished poor people in the world require.
In case you're interested in the hard facts relating to the emission controls that have been put in place since those smoggy days in the 1940s and 50s, the following link provides some revealing information.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
Ciao
-
The paper on CO2 and food production was. What a hoot. Thanks.
-
I think the positions have changed slightly.
Nobody denies any longer that the temperature is rising and that sea level is going up. The denial now is that it's caused by human activities.
Interestingly, the other side is moving toward the position that, while it's caused by human activities, it's too late and there's nothing to be done about it.
So, in terms of actual pragmatism, the two sides are very close: do nothing beyond seek high ground, and hold on tight.
Andrew,
Climate is always changing. That's what climate does. It's either getting warmer or colder during any period of time, although calculating a precise figure for a global temperature is actually impossible. There's always a wide margin of error, and data is frequently being re-evaluated and manipulated, and temperatures reconstructed.
In the past 2,000 years or more, up to the present time, there have been 3 warm periods that are at least reasonably well documented: The Roman Warm period around the time of Jesus Christ. The Medieval Warm Period during the time that the Vikings flourished in Greenland, around 1,000 years ago, and the Modern Warm Period that we are experiencing today.
Warm periods are generally preferred. Civilizations tend to flourish during warm periods. If it's true that our CO2 emissions are contributing to this Modern Warm Period, then that might actually be a good thing. As the climate descends into another cool period in the near future, in accordance with previous natural patterns, our CO2 levels could protect us from the worst of the cooling.
Of course, the AGW alarmists have done their best to cover up the existence of these previous warm periods in recent history. One such cover-up was Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph which has been the subject of much 'fraud' litigation.
Another dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period, by the AGW alarmists, is the claim that it was not a global phenomenon. However, such dismissal is based upon a lack of evidence and lack of historic data from other parts of the globe, and as we should all know, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ;)
One of my favourite photographic locations is the area around Siem Reap in Cambodia, where the ancient Khmer temples of Angkor are located. I just love walking around the ruins photographing the bizarre mixture of crumbling temples and giant tree roots, but the history of this place is also fascinating.
It's always been a mystery to historians why the Khmer population just relocated after being conquered by the Thais during the 14th to 15th centuries, leaving behind a huge civilization with a vast network of canals and a flourishing agricultural system, which became a lost city in the jungle until it was rediscovered by the French colonialists in the 19th century.
However, the mystery has now been solved by Australian scientists. According to an analysis of tree rings, climate change was the main cause of the collapse of the Khmer civilization. During the same time (approximately) that Greenland was icing over, causing the Vikings to become more isolated and making living conditions more harsh for them, the snows and glaciers in the Himalayas (another favourite photographic location) refused to melt during summer, as they had done in the past during the build-up of the Khmer civilization.
The Khmer civilization was totally dependent upon the water from the melting snows of the Himalayas flowing down the Mekong and filling up their dams. After a number of years of drought due to a cooling climate, the civilization would have been in deep trouble. The population would have begun moving to other locations in search of food. The Thais would have seen this state of affairs as an opportunity to attack, which they did. The local population would have seen no reason to hang around or even return to the place later, so the city became lost in the jungle.
Man-made CO2 would have had no bearing on this disaster, but Shhhh! Don't spread it around, otherwise the development of sustainable energy might slow down. ;)
-
The paper on CO2 and food production was. What a hoot. Thanks.
What part is a hoot, Andrew? Can you point to anything in those articles that is not reasonably factual? Establishing that increased CO2 results in increased agricultural production is something that can be done with certainty, in real time, without having to rely upon dubious computer projections based upon limited and shaky data. Farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses for decades, in order to increase crop yields.
-
This thread has gone way off topic. It was about, "The Tyranny of Medical Bills in America". As a casual observer from Australia, it once again seems a product of wedge politics.
The Republicans seem to be saying, "We are working and can afford our health care. Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The Democrats seem to have no answer.
The result is that you have a world class health system for those who can afford it and a third world health system for those who can't.
Cheers,
-
Tom,
The Democrats seem to have no answer.
Perhaps they are speechless at fellow human beings saying "Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The result is that you have a world class health system for those who can afford it and a third world health system for those who can't.
The epitome of capitalism.
-
Tom,
Perhaps they are speechless at fellow human beings saying "Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The epitome of capitalism.
Not quite, Rob: the epitome of the failure to employ the fruits of capitalism to better effect.
Rob C
-
Ray, a prodigious amount of research there, in your reply to Andrew.
Wouldn't it have been easier and far less time-consuming for you to have come right out and stated: you're all gonna die, at least once terminally; why waste money on medicine?
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
Not quite...: the epitome of the failure to employ the fruits of capitalism to better effect.
In principle, yes; in practice, no.
-
Ray, a prodigious amount of research there, in your reply to Andrew.
Well, a prodigious amount of typing, anyway. In terms of actual research, as undertaken by scientists doing that whole "using data and making verifiable hypotheses" thang, I think the jury has returned and the verdict is pretty clear that man-made CO2 is causing climate change and it ain't gonna be pretty.
-
What part is a hoot, Andrew? Can you point to anything in those articles that is not reasonably factual? Establishing that increased CO2 results in increased agricultural production is something that can be done with certainty, in real time, without having to rely upon dubious computer projections based upon limited and shaky data. Farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses for decades, in order to increase crop yields.
As usual in natural systems, the truth is a complex affair. For example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
Predicting the world’s overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
-
This thread has gone way off topic. It was about, "The Tyranny of Medical Bills in America". As a casual observer from Australia, it once again seems a product of wedge politics.
The Republicans seem to be saying, "We are working and can afford our health care. Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The Democrats seem to have no answer.
The result is that you have a world class health system for those who can afford it and a third world health system for those who can't.
Cheers,
The thread is not entirely off topic. Obama is no doubt doing his best to rectify the great inequality of access to medical resources among American citizens, but he's also very much in favour of reducing CO2 emissions.
Both plans require money and both are in conflict unless only the rich pay for both causes. That is, increased taxes on the rich to pay for increased medical services for the poor, and increased taxes on the rich to pay for increased energy costs that result, at least initially, from tackling CO2 emissions.
-
What part is a hoot, Andrew? Can you point to anything in those articles that is not reasonably factual? Establishing that increased CO2 results in increased agricultural production is something that can be done with certainty, in real time, without having to rely upon dubious computer projections based upon limited and shaky data. Farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses for decades, in order to increase crop yields.
The paper is an absolute maze of simple linear predictions ("so we divide this by that and get 1.8 which we then multiply by this other thing to project 50 years ...") based on controlled experiments without any consideration of the fact that there are other factors when you get out into the real world.
Simply boosting CO2 does indeed increase production in some dimensions (starches and sugars, but not proteins). Combine that with temperature rise and changes in water availability, and the simple linear prediction almost certainly falls apart.
These are complex dynamical systems (that's a mathematical term which means "chaotic") and you can't make useful predictions by laying down a ruler, or fitting polynomials (he does fit a polynomial on one occasion).
The absolute failure to mention potential issues and problems, to discuss weaknesses of the analysis, and so on, mark this clearly as an unscientific position paper, as opposed to anything useful or interesting.
-
As usual in natural systems, the truth is a complex affair. For example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
Predicting the world’s overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
Now that comment from the New Scientist is revealing. If one accepts that predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 levels is virtually impossible, despite the obvious fact that plant growth can be observed in real time under varying levels of CO2 in greenhouses and out in the open with CO2 wafted over the plants, then one must logically accept that predicting the effect of CO2 on global climate change, using flawed computer models and without the benefit of real-time testing, is not just virtually impossible but actually impossible. One can't have it both ways. One can't have one's cake and eat it.
The article accepts the fact that all plants could benefit from rising CO2 levels when water is a limiting factor, then goes on to state the bleeding obvious that increased plant growth will level off when limited by water or nitrogen.
The author of that article seems to have missed the point, which is, for a given supply of water and nitrogen, and at a given temperature, most varieties of plants will respond with increased growth when given increased CO2, up to a certain level of CO2, which I believe is around 1500 ppm or about 4x the current atmospheric level.
For example, in the desert with no water at all there is no plant growth no matter how high the levels of CO2. When there's a good shower of rain, the desert begins to bloom and it will bloom more magnificently with elevated levels of CO2. However, if the wet weather in the desert persists and one gets continuous rain for unusually long periods, the plant growth will not continue to increase at the same rate if there is a lack of nitrogen in the sandy soil, which is quite likely in a desert.
Plants do not live by CO2 alone. They obviously need water, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and a few other macronutrients. Agriculturists know this. Whatever the level of atmospheric CO2, they will add appropriate amounts of water and macronutrients to achieve maximum crop yield, if they're sensible and able to.
If one imagines a science fiction scenario whereby we were able to reduce CO2 levels from the present 400ppm to pre-industrial levels of around 280ppm in a very short period of time, say a few months, then the following year's agricultural production would be significantly reduced when using the same amount of water and macronutrients. That's the point.
-
The paper is an absolute maze of simple linear predictions ("so we divide this by that and get 1.8 which we then multiply by this other thing to project 50 years ...") based on controlled experiments without any consideration of the fact that there are other factors when you get out into the real world.
Have you read the paper, Andrew? On page 8 there is the following statement.
"Located on the Internet at http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php,
the CO2 Science Plant Growth Database lists the results of thousands of CO2 enrichment experiments conducted on hundreds of different crops growing under varying environmental conditions over the past few decades. This database was used to calculate the mean crop growth response to a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration for each crop listed in Table 1."
And here is a statement from the above mentioned "co2science.org" site:
"In this section of our web site we maintain an ever-expanding archive of the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies that report the growth responses of plants to atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
"
Of course there are always changing factors in the real world. However, in order to determine the effect of elevated levels of CO2 on plant growth one has to try to keep all other factors the same. It would be plain silly to compare the growth of plants exposed to elevated CO2 levels in a desert with the growth of plants in the wet tropics exposed to reduced levels of CO2, then claim that reduced levels of CO2 result in increased growth."
I can't understand your objection, Andrew. You're not in a state of denial by any chance, are you? ;)
-
Yes, I read the paper. I have read many papers, scientific and otherwise. I've written some, again of both kinds.
The cited paper is a position paper, not a scientific one. I'm not sure why you think citing other papers makes this one good. Anyone can cite anything. Bad papers almost invariably cite tons of papers.
As to the larger question, it is perfectly correct to say that we cannot reliably predict the total consequences increased CO2. Nobody is saying we can.
I would elaborate, but it seems pointless.
-
The whole discussion is pointless.
-
Now that comment from the New Scientist is revealing. If one accepts that predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 levels is virtually impossible, despite the obvious fact that plant growth can be observed in real time under varying levels of CO2 in greenhouses and out in the open with CO2 wafted over the plants, then one must logically accept that predicting the effect of CO2 on global climate change, using flawed computer models and without the benefit of real-time testing, is not just virtually impossible but actually impossible. One can't have it both ways. One can't have one's cake and eat it.
You seem to be a bit muddled up. In order to predict the effed of increased co2 level on global food production you have to know the effect of co2 alone on the growth of all the plants which contribute, you have to predict the change in temperature, and you have to then predict the effect of that temperature change on all of the other factors which affect plant growth, such as quantity and seasonality of rainfall, erosion of soil etc etc The problem is harder than climate prediction alone. Predicting world food supply would also rely on the computer models you ignorantly dismiss as "flaky" but would add several more layers of complexity on top.
-
The whole discussion is pointless.
Thank you for your contribution.
-
You're welcome.
-
Oddly enough, your best bet for predicting these things may be to explain the details to a bunch of domain experts, ask them to make their best guess, and average the results. There are some pretty deep reasons why this works unreasonably well.
Here's a story from the cold war: A US submarine went down someplace in the Atlantic. Information was sketchy, but there was a little data. Some clever bugger shared the data with a bunch of submarine guys, and asked them where they thought the wreck was. The answers clustered around two locations, let's call them A and B.
So this clever bugger looked, roughly, halfway between A and B, where exactly zero of the experts had guessed, and by god the wreck was right there. Within some idiotically tiny margin, 100s of yards or something.
Economies, climatological systems, ecologies, agricultural systems, all these things, are insanely hard to model. The smallest accurate model of these damned things is generally the thing itself. Chaos, dynamical systems, blah blah blah. There are reasons. You can make fairly accurate short term predictions, and you can make some broad-strokes guesses in the longer term. Those tend to be, really, "well, my best guess is X, but really? Anything is possible."
Note, however, that "well, we can't reliably predict the result of <massive change> will be" isn't a justification for performing that massive change. Normal people think that it's actually a worse scenario that being able to predict the result. But the climate change debate isn't based on rational argument or reasoning of any kind. It's entirely political, and anything that looks like an argument is just an attempt to rationalize a position held for purely social and emotional reasons.
-
As to the larger question, it is perfectly correct to say that we cannot reliably predict the total consequences increased CO2. Nobody is saying we can.
I would elaborate, but it seems pointless.
You're quite right Andrew. It certainly would be pointless to elaborate on a point that no-one is making, ie. that we cannot reliably predict the total consequences of increased CO2 levels.
At least we agree on something. ;)
-
You seem to be a bit muddled up. In order to predict the effed of increased co2 level on global food production you have to know the effect of co2 alone on the growth of all the plants which contribute,
Exactly, and that's largely been done with countless studies of thousands of varieties of plants under controlled conditions of different levels of CO2. I'm certainly not muddled on this point.
..and you have to then predict the effect of that temperature change on all of the other factors which affect plant growth, such as quantity and seasonality of rainfall, erosion of soil etc etc The problem is harder than climate prediction alone. Predicting world food supply would also rely on the computer models you ignorantly dismiss as "flaky" but would add several more layers of complexity on top.
This is the point where you seem to be muddled. Changes of temperature affect all plants regardless of CO2 levels. Temperature and water supplies during the time periods that concern farmers and agriculturists, vary far more as a result of changing weather patterns than as a result of changing climate, and as we all know, weather forecasts are notoriously inaccurate, especially for periods of more than a few days into the future.
Intelligent creatures survive through their ability to adapt. In Australia the records show that we've had alternating periods of droughts and floods for thousands of years, yet we continue to build houses in flood plains then express surprise when the next flood occurs, then blame the flood on climate change in order to protect ourselves from the thought that we might be just plain stupid.
-
I dunno if the gun is fake, or if real whether it is loaded or not. If loaded, I don't know if a round is chambered. Nor do I know it's cocked. Tons of unknowns here.
You're saying that a reasonable course of action is to stick the muzzle in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Because not knowing for certain that it's dangerous is exactly the same as knowing it's safe.
-
What on earth are you talking about Andrew? Could you try to be more specific with regard to what your analogy relates to? ;)
-
No, I cannot.
-
This is the point where you seem to be muddled. Changes of temperature affect all plants regardless of CO2 levels. Temperature and water supplies during the time periods that concern farmers and agriculturists, vary far more as a result of changing weather patterns than as a result of changing climate, and as we all know, weather forecasts are notoriously inaccurate, especially for periods of more than a few days into the future.
This seems not to be the case, but, as Andy says, there is little point arguing the point since your mind has apparently been made up on the basis of non-scientific factors. There is obviously a huge body of work that points the way the climate is going. If you want to criticise that work, that's fine, but to be taken seriously that criticism has to amount to a bit more than recounting a few anecdotes you picked up on your travels.
-
This seems not to be the case, but, as Andy says, there is little point arguing the point since your mind has apparently been made up on the basis of non-scientific factors. There is obviously a huge body of work that points the way the climate is going. If you want to criticise that work, that's fine, but to be taken seriously that criticism has to amount to a bit more than recounting a few anecdotes you picked up on your travels.
Fair enough! I thought I'd provided more than a few anecdotes that I'd picked up on my travels. Didn't I provide some links to a couple science-oriented sites dealing with a number of facts and estimates in some detail?
I'm quite willing to look at both sides of any argument and discuss the merits, weakness, pros and cons etc, through the application of a bit of logic and rationality. However, if you think the discussion is pointless, no problem! I understand. ;)
-
Man-made CO2 would have had no bearing on this disaster, but Shhhh! Don't spread it around, otherwise the development of sustainable energy might slow down. ;)
After some useful information, you come out with this bit of very poor logic. Not to mention sustainable energy is a good thing regardless of climate change.
Climate certainly changes and at times can do so catastrophically. The fact we had nothing to do with previous occasions does not therefore mean we will have nothing to do with the next big change. Humans never had the capacity to alter it before, but thanks to technology and the vast numbers of us, now we do.
-
This thread has gone way off topic. It was about, "The Tyranny of Medical Bills in America". As a casual observer from Australia, it once again seems a product of wedge politics.
The Republicans seem to be saying, "We are working and can afford our health care. Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The Democrats seem to have no answer.
I'd put it quite differently.
The Republicans seem to be saying, "We are working and can afford our health care. Why should we support those who can't afford it!".
The Democrats keep trying to alter this, but get blocked by Republicans who think helping others is un American or some such crazy notion.
The thread is not entirely off topic. Obama is no doubt doing his best to rectify the great inequality of access to medical resources among American citizens, but he's also very much in favour of reducing CO2 emissions.
Both plans require money and both are in conflict unless only the rich pay for both causes. That is, increased taxes on the rich to pay for increased medical services for the poor, and increased taxes on the rich to pay for increased energy costs that result, at least initially, from tackling CO2 emissions.
Well seeing as universal free healthcare in the UK costs our government considerably less that the broken American system does, introducing it could actually reduce the tax bill.
-
"The Democrats seem to have no answer."
Obamacare is step in the right direction. However the fact that it is called Obamacare is a product of wedge politics.
The Democrats have had many opportunities when they have had the balance of power in both houses to make changes. Somehow they haven't had the political will to make healthcare more equitable.
Cheers,
-
After some useful information, you come out with this bit of very poor logic. Not to mention sustainable energy is a good thing regardless of climate change.
Man-made CO2 would have had no bearing on this disaster, but Shhhh! Don't spread it around, otherwise the development of sustainable energy might slow down. ;)
Didn't you not notice the wink at the end, Jeremy? That was intended to be a statement of irony and humour. Having made the point that the scare about human-induced warming might have good consequences, even if it turns out to be the case that there never was any justification for the alarm regarding climate change, to then advertise the possibility that the real purpose of the scare is to clean up the environment and to free us from our current dependence on limited energy supplies, sort of undermines to some degree the effectiveness of the scare tactics. Don't you see? I was having a little dig at myself.
Climate certainly changes and at times can do so catastrophically. The fact we had nothing to do with previous occasions does not therefore mean we will have nothing to do with the next big change. Humans never had the capacity to alter it before, but thanks to technology and the vast numbers of us, now we do.
That we can change climate by reducing our CO2 emissions is a statement of belief on your part, not a scientific fact. It is not certain that human-induced CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to the current warming phase. The entire system of climate processes is far too complex and chaotic for any certainty to exist, but once the idea has been promoted by the media that the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and cyclones, might be the result of rising CO2 emissions, then every extreme weather event and every record-breaking temperature tends to be blamed on CO2 levels, and the ridiculous notion arises that CO2 levels are like some sort of control knob that can be turned to bring the climate back to a natural, peaceful state.
Anyway, I'd better not continue in case I further undermine these processes of scare tactics. I am of course in favour of a cleaner environment. I would much prefer to drive an electric car that I could recharge from the solar panels on the roof of my house.
-
That we can change climate by reducing our CO2 emissions is a statement of belief on your part, not a scientific fact. It is not certain that human-induced CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to the current warming phase. The entire system of climate processes is far too complex and chaotic for any certainty to exist, but once the idea has been promoted by the media that the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and cyclones, might be the result of rising CO2 emissions, then every extreme weather event and every record-breaking temperature tends to be blamed on CO2 levels, and the ridiculous notion arises that CO2 levels are like some sort of control knob that can be turned to bring the climate back to a natural, peaceful state.
My 'belief' is re climate change and man's involvement is similar to my 'beliefs' regarding gravity or plate tectonics. It comes from a science consensus as to how things work. Most scientists think we are having an impact, hence I tend to also think that may be the case. My background is geology as it happens, so I'm well aware of paleoclimatology and that climate has changed numerous times in the past without our help. But we humans are so numerous now, our activities most certainly could be the tipping point for another change.
Unfortunately this is not an issue that can be tested by having several earths, some with humans some without and then let them run with variables to see what is the definite outcomes for each scenario.
However I do not understand the extreme vehemence by some people against taking preventative measures, just in case. The worst that can happen is we make the world nicer. Whereas doing nothing could be disastrous for mankind.
-
However I do not understand the extreme vehemence by some people against taking preventative measures, just in case. The worst that can happen is we make the world nicer. Whereas doing nothing could be disastrous for mankind.
We may get less benefit for the cost than we would if we had used our resources in some other way; and that may also turn out to be "disastrous for mankind".
-
We may get less benefit for the cost than we would if we had used our resources in some other way; and that may also turn out to be "disastrous for mankind".
But they won't be spent elsewhere, that's the point you seem to ignore. Of course there may be a multitude of ways of improving our lot, but heaven forbid we try and change the status quo.
See my signature for what I think of continuing to do things the old way for it's own sake.
-
But they won't be spent elsewhere, that's the point you seem to ignore.
Are the resources you wish to see re-allocated, not currently being spent on "improving our lot"?
-
It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.
-
This isn't about science -- it's about economics and politics.
-
You need to explain that to Jeremy.
-
It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.
-
When someone starts citing papers or talking about the science itself, you know you're dealing with a partisan, interestingly.
The science is too complex and subtle for lay people. What lay people can and should judge is not the science but the men.
-
When someone starts citing papers or talking about the science itself, you know you're dealing with a partisan, interestingly.
The science is too complex and subtle for lay people. What lay people can and should judge is not the science but the men.
I think even a non-lay person, for whom the science is not too difficult, is faced with the problem that there's so f***in' MUCH of it!
-
Yep. The experts are also stuck judging men, much of the time, in modern science. Across all disciplines.
-
I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.
As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."
-
It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.
Why let facts get in the way of your opinions Russ?
I most certainly do not believe in 'settled science', anything but.
You need to explain that to Jeremy.
More ignorant, inaccurate and patronising nonsense.
Why not argue points cogently rather than being an insulting troll?
As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."
Oh wait, more petty and still inaccurate insults.
You need to grow up and stop behaving like the child you were an ever increasingly long time ago.
-
I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.
Absolutely spot on.
Saved me having to say the same thing.
-
As I said in an earlier post, it is a question of what is working? In Australia you don't have to worry about going broke paying for your medical bills, there is no need for food banks. Yes, there are dysfunctional families that need support, but that is another question.
Why can't Americans see that their system is broken? Has ideology taken over!
I do think that there are probably several decent ways to organize a system, and I don't think that the US system is all broken.
I do think that _some_ Americans tends to be very proud of their system (or their favoured part of it), to the point of any discussion about relative merits inevitably turns into a polarized mess. I tried to offer cricism of the system that I happen to be born into (of which there are many things to critizise) and of my own personal political views (of which there are somewhat less things to critizise...) in the hope that this would foster more open debate. It did not seem to work out.
I just heard that our labour party in one particular local county had such an overwhelming majority that they chose to cede some seats to competing parties (maintaining majority) in order to get some diversification of opinion.
In more local news, we just got a new party "the green party" rising up from nowhere in the 2015 local elections. Their program seems to be "environment, at any cost". They will apparently "sell" their votes left and right in other issues as long as they get to dictate a green policy. The fun part is that they (often) are at a power position where their measly 4.2% will really matter. While I find climate matters "hard", I have a hard time figuring out why 4.2% of my people (apparently) thinks that (more) environment(al friedlyness) trumps _everything else_.
I am fortunate to be in a position where I could (I assume) pay my medical bills. I am reasonably young and healthy and I have a decent job. I believe that I could have moved to a more liberalistic country in order to have a higher pay, less taxes and profit from under-paid service workers in order to get more Happy meals/beer/<insert pleasure here> for every hour spent at work. Question is, why don't I move, and why do I accept a system that "holds me back" in an Ayn Rand-esque way? When I am voting in _our_ political right (that would probably be equivalent to "democrat" for our US friends), it is not primarily because I want less taxes but (more so) because I want less government spying on citizens. I am not scared by a wealthy state, nor by a state with many employees, but I am scared by a state that knows everything about its citizens (in the name of "anti terror", "anti immoral" or whatever nastyness one can invoke to stop people from applying common sense).
-h