Responding to Paul Tanner's (PT's) post dated Dec 10, 2012 7:55 AM (pasted for reference below my signature):
>From my 'outsider view', I'd generally agree with PT's claim that 'private charity' would never be able successfully to take up the Mission of 'health care' of a nation, be it the USA or India or China. In my view, there would have to be some kind of 'societal initiative' to accomplish national health care in the least successfully.
I believe that PT may be mistaken in his idea that Kirby Urner is advocating that national health care be taken up by private charity. For instance, here is a quote from what Kirby had posted: >> >> This proves that the Feds have a very different >> mindset from the Swedes. One cannot expect the Feds to >> have anything close to the collective intelligence of >> Swedes, if history is any guide. >> To which circumstance, the evident 'solution' is:
"Raise the collective intelligence of US citizens!!!" - probably this will be found to be the ONLY way to arrive at resolution of the issue(s) involved.
In themselves, the health care issues (without taking 'collective intelligence' into consideration) are broadly as follows:
Quite sizable funding is required to operate any publicly funded health care system.
In view of the sizable funding required to provide some kind of effective health care access to all citizens, how to:
a) convince citizens that they should contribute to the health care program? b) ensure that it (the health care) is done effectively (by whichever may be the designated public agency to which it is entrusted)?
Both 'a' and 'b' above are essential.
Public funding of any health care scheme cannot happen (in a democracy) if citizens are not convinced that they should contribute; citizens will not wish to contribute to an ineffective system (which is unfortunately what we have in place in most nations).
[I don't know in adequate depth/detail how the Scandinavian nations are handling their health care: probably, in view of their 'higher collective intelligence', they are doing a better job of it than either the USA or India! You see how 'collective intelligence' comes into play even when we try to keep it out!]
I believe that - should the issue EVER be effectively discussed and decided - it will be found that a satisfactory health care system is actually not at all expensive to bring into being and put into place: it will certainly cost FAR less than the national losses due to illness, etc.
At the same time, I believe the 'health care' idea would have to be changed quite significantly from the current one of 'sickness treatment and relief'. It is known, for instance, that a great deal of illness is actually caused by unhealthy eating and living habits - and curing THAT is probably how universal health care can be economically provided by society.
Of course, all of this will probably require a 'revolution in the way we think' to be brought about in people at large: see the attachments to the message at the head of this thread for information about practical tools to bring such a revolution into being. > > ... >I say it again: Let no one complain about "harsh > light". > I note: I'm not really worried about 'harsh light' being thrown on an issue. Light thrown on an issue is always welcome, regardless of its intensity or quality.
I'm primarily interested in 'effective resolution' of issues - and that rarely occurs when there's more sound created than light thrown.
GSC Paul A. Tanner III posted Dec 10, 2012 7:55 AM: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM, kirby urner > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > ... > > > > Paul also thinks the US is in a position to follow > Sweden, but I think > > psychologically the US is not mature enough at this > point. Remember > > the US and Sweden all but severed diplomatic > relations during the > > Vietnam War. Sweden was highly critical of the US > in this chapter. > > > > This proves that the Feds have a very different > mindset from the > > Swedes. One cannot expect the Feds to have > anything close to the > > collective intelligence of Swedes, if history is > any guide. > > > > That's why I think my interest in letting companies > offer health > > packages that take people out of North America for > some procedures and > > treatments, if not physically then > jurisdictionally. > > > > Perhaps I could buy into a Swedish outfit that > helped run a network of > > hospitals and hospital cruise ships. My > contribution to the plan > > would be deducted from my pay check. I could do > this without > > surrendering US citizenship. > > > > I can well imagine global health care networks that > offer care > > packages in various shapes and sizes. It might be > nice if the Feds > > were a part of the solution, not part of the > problem, but evidence > > suggests such competence is not there. We can't > afford to just sit on > > our hands and wait for the Feds to become > intelligent, contributing > > world citizens. > > > > Kirby > > All of the above is just more BS about "those evil > Feds". > > Would Kirby have been in favor of "those evil Feds" > helping blacks in > the South during the civil rights struggles of the > 20th century, > knowing that "those evil Feds" via federal laws were > the only hope for > those blacks? Or would he have promoted then what he > promotes here, > promoting that since "those Feds are evil", the > blacks would just have > to accept having to go to the bathroom in buckets > they had to carry > with them? (This last is a reference to the fact of > life for blacks > during segregation in the South, where if they > traveled, they would > have to take buckets to pee in and defecate in, since > the vast > majority if public places did not allow blacks into > the restrooms - > they did not have two separate facilities for the > differences > "races".) Would Kirby have been against all that > federal civil rights > legislation? > > Meanwhile, the suffering and death toll mounts in the > US because of > lack or health care because people like Kirby stand > in the way of the > only thing that could end all this suffering and > death, which is > "those evil Feds" doing today what they did then in > the 20th century, > realize that we are in a civil rights crisis that > only "the evil Feds" > have the power to end, and use that power and end it. > > One wonders because of how he talks so negatively > about the US > government whether Kirby is actually promoting the > killing of Medicare > and Medicaid (note that half of Medicaid goes to fund > nursing home > care for poor old people), which would result in > throwing all the old > people out into the streets and letting them all rot > to death with no > health care or nursing home care. > > Yes, that is what would be guaranteed to happen > because I proved in > > "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7934201 > > and in prior posts > > "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933893 > > and > > "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933416 > > including all the links I gave that mathematically > private charity > could never meet any more than a tiny few percentage > points of the > total need. > > I mean, all I'm talking about is simply more funding > for these > existing programs so that the out of pocket costs > could be lowered and > so that they could be expanded to everyone in the > country who would > want to be on them. > > I think people like Kirby have zero appreciation for > how helpful > Medicare and Medicaid are to those who are on these > programs - and how > viciously cruel it is to promote that those on these > programs should > be thrown off them, or to promote that those not on > those programs > should not be allowed on them even though these > programs are the only > hope for the vast majority of those not on them to > end their suffering > from no health care. > > Note: And no BS that these programs are poorly run. > Medicare Parts A > and B are vastly better run than private insurance > companies in terms > of what is called the medical loss ratio, which is > the percentage of > money going into the plan that actually gets spent on > health care. > Roughly 97% of all Medicare Parts A and B money > actually goes to > health care, while the average for the private health > insurance > industry has been plummeting to where it now is only > about 80%: > > See what former insurance company executive Wendell > Potter says - he > is now telling the truth about what they actually do. > > " > http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p > hp?az=view_all&address=439x2419859 > > "WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of > profitability that > investors look to, and it's called a medical loss > ratio. And it's > unique to the health insurance industry. And by > medical loss ratio, I > mean that it's a measure that tells investors or > anyone else how much > of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company > to actually pay > medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the > years, since the > industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by > for-profit > insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back > during the time > that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out > of every dollar > was sent, you know, on average was used by the > insurance companies to > pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly > above 80 percent. > > ... > > There was a time, in the early 1990s, when health > insurance companies > devoted more than 95 cents out of every premium > dollar to paying > doctors and hospitals for taking care of their > members. No more. Since > President Bill Clinton's health reform plan died 15 > years ago, the > health insurance industry has come to be dominated by > a handful of > insurance companies that answer to Wall Street > investors, and they > have changed that basic math. Today, insurers only > pay about 81 cents > of each premium dollar on actual medical care. The > rest is consumed by > rising profits, grotesque executive salaries, huge > administrative > expenses, the cost of weeding out people with > pre-existing conditions > and claims review designed to wear out patients with > denials and > disapprovals of the care they need the most." > > And Kirby thinks this obscenity by the insurance > companies is good, > and at the same it is horrible what "those evil Feds" > are doing, > saving countless lives and preventing vast amounts of > suffering via > Medicare and Medicaid with that 97% efficiency? > > I say it again: Let no one complain about "harsh > light".