Join Early Retirement Today
View Poll Results: How Should Americans' Health Care be Paid For?
Keep the status quo 4 2.72%
The Health Care Act, or something similar 4 2.72%
Individual responsibility with minimal, if any, government involvement 19 12.93%
A tax-funded, comprehensive government health plan 54 36.73%
A government plan for catastrophic illness/injury, plus optional supplemental coverage 22 14.97%
Hybrid—a government plan pays a set amount; the remainder is paid by supplemental coverage or out of pocket 14 9.52%
Underwritten policies for catastrophic coverage + national risk pool + HSA + tort reform 22 14.97%
Other (please explain) 8 5.44%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-20-2010, 05:56 AM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaco View Post
My impression is ...
Well put. I agree with everything you said... 100%.
__________________

__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-20-2010, 07:16 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
I am totally flabbergasted that single-payer has nearly four times as many votes as the next choice. I had quite a different idea from reading the comments in the various health care related threads and absolutely no idea there was that much support for it on the forum. And to compare/contrast the views of E-R members to those of the general public, I can only suppose that E-R is way out of synch with John Q. Public. If the general public also supported a single-payer system four to one above the next most popular option, I would have expected a single-payer Health Care Act to have sailed right through Congress without a hitch.
I was surprised at the poll as well, primarily because of the comments during the HC debate. As to the American public, we are inconsistent. Remember the "keep your hands of my Medicare" refrain? Medicare for all with some sort of supplement (and ongoing efforts to reform the Medicare portion to control costs) might very well appeal to a large majority of Americans if it could be fairly placed before them. Unfortunately, such a proposal would get distorted and demonized with the result that many would never understand what the concept was. As for Congress, most of there actions are keyed to the next election not to the greater good or to the "opinion of the American people" they always talk about. Consider the recent don't ask, don't tell legislation. Substantial majorities of the public have supported repealing it for some time. Yet it almost didn't come to a vote in the Senate. If Harry Reid hadn't used the threat to continue the session late in the Holiday season the measure probably wouldn't have garnered the 60 votes needed to proceed to a vote. Once it was given an up or down vote it ended up with 65.
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 08:24 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
IMO, money is less important than human life, and to say to anybody (who has not voluntarily declined treatment), "we're going to let you die because it costs too much to keep you alive" is, to put it bluntly, immoral.
Each of us do it every day.

As an example, I don't know anyone who pays to have a fully certified mechanic on their personal staff. Their car should get a full safety inspection prior to every single drive. What if your brakes failed? But it would be too expensive to do that.

You can give so many examples of this. How many CO2 and different types of smoke detectors do you have in your house, different types are better at detecting different types of smoke. Do you have a sprinkler system? On and on. We all make this decision. But, if those mechanics or other things were available 'for free', many more would insist on frequent inspections. Total expenditures would go through the roof.

And if I were in a mental state to be able to make the decision, I would absolutely decide to stop seeking medical treatment based on cost. At some point, I would not want to leave my family penniless, when the odds were against me, and I might not have much quality time left anyhow. If it's somebody else's money, sure - why not? Maybe that is what is immoral?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 09:14 AM   #24
Recycles dryer sheets
Automatika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Each of us do it every day.

As an example, I don't know anyone who pays to have a fully certified mechanic on their personal staff. Their car should get a full safety inspection prior to every single drive. What if your brakes failed? But it would be too expensive to do that.

You can give so many examples of this. How many CO2 and different types of smoke detectors do you have in your house, different types are better at detecting different types of smoke. Do you have a sprinkler system? On and on. We all make this decision. But, if those mechanics or other things were available 'for free', many more would insist on frequent inspections. Total expenditures would go through the roof.

And if I were in a mental state to be able to make the decision, I would absolutely decide to stop seeking medical treatment based on cost. At some point, I would not want to leave my family penniless, when the odds were against me, and I might not have much quality time left anyhow. If it's somebody else's money, sure - why not? Maybe that is what is immoral?

-ERD50
+1

Universal health care sounds great on paper, but I can't see how it could ever be paid for with unlimited benefits. A line has to be drawn somewhere, the real debate is where?
__________________
"If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now, would it?" -M. Python


Age 50, DW is 54, 1.4M split 25 Stock, 40 Mutual Funds, 25 Bonds, 5 Commodities, 5 REIT. Own Home, no debts.
Automatika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 09:16 AM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Each of us do it every day.

As an example, I don't know anyone who pays to have a fully certified mechanic on their personal staff. Their car should get a full safety inspection prior to every single drive. What if your brakes failed? But it would be too expensive to do that.

You can give so many examples of this. How many CO2 and different types of smoke detectors do you have in your house, different types are better at detecting different types of smoke. Do you have a sprinkler system? On and on. We all make this decision. But, if those mechanics or other things were available 'for free', many more would insist on frequent inspections. Total expenditures would go through the roof.

And if I were in a mental state to be able to make the decision, I would absolutely decide to stop seeking medical treatment based on cost. At some point, I would not want to leave my family penniless, when the odds were against me, and I might not have much quality time left anyhow. If it's somebody else's money, sure - why not? Maybe that is what is immoral?

-ERD50
+1
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 10:35 AM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
Well the results of this poll sure are interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
I am totally flabbergasted that single-payer has nearly four times as many votes as the next choice. I had quite a different idea from reading the comments in the various health care related threads ...
I think you are putting far too much significance to a poll like this. Any self-selected poll is questionable at best. We have no idea if those who voted are representative of those who commented in those other threads. And different people interpret comments differently. We all have a tendency to focus and remember with a certain bias (it might be that we remember the ones that agree with our view, or the ones that disagree, depending on the subject and how we feel about it).

As one example, I chose not to vote here. I had trouble understanding just what those choices really meant (it is a complex subject after all), and there appeared to be gaps and overlaps (couldn't we have tort reform in the other options?). I could pick 'other' and then point back to that summary that samclem posted way back (I should have bookmarked it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
I voted other.

All the listed options seem to cost-shift rather than cost-control. They present options for who pays....but no discussion related to decreasing the actual cost of health care. And I believe that BOTH issues must be addressed. .
+1

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 10:41 AM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I think you are putting far too much significance to a poll like this. Any self-selected poll is questionable at best.

As one example, I chose not to vote here. I had trouble understanding just what those choices really meant (it is a complex subject after all),).

-ERD50
Of course the poll is questionable. But it is still interesting and significant. The fact that you would like to add certain features not specified in the choices doesn't mean you don't lean one way or the other. We would all add our preferences here and there. Bottom line, a substantial majority is coalescing around a Government plan with or without supplementals. that doesn't conform at all with what we are constantly told the American people want.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 11:04 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
I don't have very strong opinions on where the biggest cost savings are available. I have extremely strong opinions, though, about denying medical care to anyone, on the basis of expense.
If a person has the resources to pay for their own very expensive care, they should be able to buy it. If they used their resources to purchase insurance that pays for very expensive care, the insurer should pay off up to the level of the agreement. But if the patient is using resources taken from "the taxpayers", then we all get a vote on how much we are willing to spend. The pot is not unlimited, and every dollar spent on very expensive care for the last 3 months of life is not available for more efficient uses (well-baby care, immunizations, public health programs, etc). Anyone not comfortable with letting others decide this issue on their behalf should carefully consider which plans really meet their needs.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 11:36 AM   #29
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Of course the poll is questionable. But it is still interesting and significant. The fact that you would like to add certain features not specified in the choices doesn't mean you don't lean one way or the other. We would all add our preferences here and there. Bottom line, a substantial majority is coalescing around a Government plan with or without supplementals. that doesn't conform at all with what we are constantly told the American people want.
Just like any other polls conducted by the so-called professionals. They all have an agenda. The questions can be manipulated to obtain predetermined results.
__________________
huusom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:03 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by huusom View Post
They all have an agenda. The questions can be manipulated to obtain predetermined results.
Of course, Political Propoganda (no such thing as) helps a little:

PolitiFact Announces 2010 Lie Of The Year : NPR

Quote:
INSKEEP: Okay, Bill Adair. So those are some of the finalists for lie of the year as chosen by PolitiFact.com. Here we go. The drama is intense. What, in your view, is the lie of the year?

Mr. ADAIR: The claim that the Democratic healthcare law is a government takeover of healthcare.

INSKEEP: What's wrong with that?

Mr. ADAIR: Well, it's just ridiculously false. The plan relies on private insurance companies, and in fact private insurance companies are actually going to end up with more business because of the law, and yet it was a refrain we heard again and again. It was definitely the most pervasive falsehood of the year.

INSKEEP: Let's hear that phrase as used again and again in different ways by various politicians this year.

Unidentified Man #2: People don't want a government takeover of healthcare.

Unidentified Woman: Cradle to grave government takeover of the...

Unidentified Man #3: ...the government takeover, just as they are with other aspects of our economy.
Also found here:
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:04 PM   #31
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Unlike some proponents of universal coverage, I do not believe health care is a "right" in the real sense. A "right" to me is something that one can exercise without taking life, liberty or property of other individuals against their consent. With that definition (I know other people have other definitions they prefer), health care is not a "right."

Heck, using that definition one can say public education isn't a right, either. But I think health care and education have a lot in common: whether a right or not, it's a compelling public good that a compassionate and prosperous society should want to provide to all its people, to at least some level.

Having said that, in terms of maintaining "domestic tranquility" and providing at least some minimally dignified quality of life for all, I think universal coverage should be a goal similar to universal K-12 education. And like education, those with means could choose to use their own means to purchase supplemental coverage or other health care items not covered by the universal plan.

I think the way health care reform was enacted was dumb. I don't like the idea of mandating that all people buy private products (this was the main Constitutional challenge, IIRC) and the way the subsidy phased out for purchasers of individual coverage amount to something like an extra 15% tax on middle class income.

To me, if we want universal coverage, we will have to make tough decisions in terms of compromising quality and/or availability. Will we accept limits to end-of-life treatments? Will we accept waiting a month or two for a routine office visit?
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:48 PM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
At this point we are running 70% that want MORE government involvement than Obamacare (which relies largely on private insurance with a weak mandate). 73% if we count Tex Proud as a Gov Basic plus supplemental. So how do we as a group stack up against the underlying views of the American public?

The problem is I do not what what I proposed... so go back to 70%....


I was just putting something out that I could live with since there are so many people who seem to want universal coverage managed by gvmt...


The big problem with my proposal is with any gvmt program... creep.... sure, you set it up where there is a limit to what can be done under the plan... then another congrss gets in and mandates more... and then more more more... until you have a single payor system that does not allow private insurance...

It is this creep that has so many of us conservatives not wanting to let the gvmt get involved with anything....


What we need is a sunset provision for ALL bills.... all of them will die after a certain amount of time and have to be voted on again...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:59 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
So you'd be in favor of some sort of committee that was empowered to deny life-extending care to individuals under some conditions. What criteria would you like to see in place to begin this process? Perhaps we can make that slope less slippery.

Seems like a holier than though tone to me....


There are many people who as so sick and not really living life that they should be allowed to die... if you do not think so you have not experienced some of this for some reason...

And I have an example that I have given before... a worker of mine was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer... she had a few months to live... they did surgery on her within a month or two of her dying for a different thing that could have been handled by drugs since they knew she was dying... and her life was hurt because she had to recover from surgery..... not a great way to spend one month of the last two you have....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:28 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
I believe in universal healthcare for everyone.
I think the point of the poll is "Who pays?". By "universal healthcare" do you mean taxpayers pay for everything from a simple antibiotic for strep throat up to a liver transplant, or do you mean something more limited?
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:45 PM   #35
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Seems like a holier than though tone to me....


There are many people who as so sick and not really living life that they should be allowed to die... if you do not think so you have not experienced some of this for some reason...

And I have an example that I have given before... a worker of mine was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer... she had a few months to live... they did surgery on her within a month or two of her dying for a different thing that could have been handled by drugs since they knew she was dying... and her life was hurt because she had to recover from surgery..... not a great way to spend one month of the last two you have....
I have had some experience with this recently as well. It's not pleasant.

Silver wanted someone to make the decision to say 'no' to continuing care for some individuals. I just want to know how that decision will be arrived at. Will it be done by something like the transplant committees at many hospitals, or by a loss mitigation specialist at an insurer? What will be the criteria used to decide when care gets cut off? What sort of treatment is to be provided for those who are cut off?

Does a cutoff of care apply only to care covered by insurance? Can a wealthy, effectively self-insured person buy care without a cutoff? Could someone buy supplemental insurance to prevent being cut off?

How much cost containment are you going for? Currently, 27% of Medicare expense goes to people in their final year of life. Would palliative care for the terminally ill be a permissible expense (remember, there were severe political objections to this recently)? Would you be willing to permit a doctor receiving Medicare payment to discuss palliative treatment or hospice end-of-life care with a patient, or inform them of the availability of living wills (What noted expert Sarah Palin interprets as a 'death panel')?

If folks are big fans of the Hoche-Binding thesis, I'd really like to know, preferably well in advance.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 02:45 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
I have had some experience with this recently as well. It's not pleasant.

Silver wanted someone to make the decision to say 'no' to continuing care for some individuals. I just want to know how that decision will be arrived at. Will it be done by something like the transplant committees at many hospitals, or by a loss mitigation specialist at an insurer? What will be the criteria used to decide when care gets cut off? What sort of treatment is to be provided for those who are cut off?

Does a cutoff of care apply only to care covered by insurance? Can a wealthy, effectively self-insured person buy care without a cutoff? Could someone buy supplemental insurance to prevent being cut off?

How much cost containment are you going for? Currently, 27% of Medicare expense goes to people in their final year of life. Would palliative care for the terminally ill be a permissible expense (remember, there were severe political objections to this recently)? Would you be willing to permit a doctor receiving Medicare payment to discuss palliative treatment or hospice end-of-life care with a patient, or inform them of the availability of living wills (What noted expert Sarah Palin interprets as a 'death panel')?

If folks are big fans of the Hoche-Binding thesis, I'd really like to know, preferably well in advance.

There are many examples of decisions being made that a large percent of people would say 'this is to much' that are not done...

With this discussion, I remembered one of the news magazines who had a show on the costs that society had to pay because of the way we allow people to decide something without paying... they had two families showing the decisions...

The first one was a man who (IIRC) fell off a ladder and hit his head... they got him to the emergency center and was able to keep his body alive... but he was brain dead... the family had the decision to keep him on life support or take him off... he had private insurance, so it was not a taxpayer issue, but an insurance issue... from what I remember, the insurance would pay to keep him on machines for as long as the family wanted... they decided to take him off in a day or two... I think most of us would make the same decision....

The other was a welfare mom who had a brain dead baby... they spent millions of dollars to keep the infant 'alive'... this went on for many months.. the welfare mom coming to the hospital every day... it was not costing her a thing... but it was costing 'society' millions and millions of dollars...


Now, if she had a private insurance policy that allowed this to go on... fine by me... even though it would not be the decision I would make... but she did not... and I do not think that society has an OBLIGATION to keep a brain dead baby alive because the mother can not deal with it... all that money was wasted.. period... it could have been used to immunize many hundreds of thousands of people... and I bet if you could figure it out, there were other people who died because of this lady's decision... why Because we will go to the extreme to 'save' this one life, but will not spend the needed funds to protect healthy people who might need a vaccination for something... they catch it and die...


Sure, sure... this is an extreme example.... but if we can not even agree on these extreme examples, how are we going to get the problem fixed....


And BTW, in other countries they do not worry about it as much as we do... my wife lost her first husband to cancer... he was in a country that had 'universal coverage'... he was told to go home, they could not help him (state 4)... they did not even give any pain medication... so he went home to die... I wonder why we seem to have this big issue when others do not...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
How Should American's Health care be Paid for?
Old 12-20-2010, 02:54 PM   #37
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
How Should American's Health care be Paid for?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 02:57 PM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Would you be willing to permit a doctor receiving Medicare payment to discuss palliative treatment or hospice end-of-life care with a patient, or inform them of the availability of living wills ...
In my singular experience, this already happens, with no reference to the source of payment (so far as I know). In the last two years of her life, when my mother was seriously ill, every time she was admitted to the hospital, she or I (when she was not able) needed to make choices about resuscitation options and needed to be informed about the advisability of living wills and how to arrange for them. Just standard hospital routine. When we were getting closer to the end, her physician and a hospital intern there as a witness spoke with her about these matters in my absence, and I was told later that what she had said (roughly, "I'm ready to die") was in accord with what I had told them. I was impressed with the care that was taken. But this was a church-owned hospital, so perhaps they are more ethically meticulous than elsewhere?
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 03:23 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
I just want to know how that decision will be arrived at. Will it be done by something like the transplant committees at many hospitals, or by a loss mitigation specialist at an insurer? What will be the criteria used to decide when care gets cut off? What sort of treatment is to be provided for those who are cut off?
This is how the British do it.
How the UK rations health care | PRI.ORG

NICE's rationing decisions start with a basic premise: The government should spend its limited resources on treatments that do the most good for the money. NICE calculates cost-effectiveness with a widely used measure called a quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
In essence, NICE asks these questions: How much does a drug or procedure cost? How much does the treatment extend the average patient's life? And what is the quality of that life gained?
The calculations are complicated, but imagine that a cancer treatment costs $100,000 and that it extends the life of the average patient by four years. That means the cost of the treatment per year gained is $25,000.
Now imagine that for part of those four years the patient will be in pain and bedridden. NICE might figure the quality of that life at 50 percent of perfect health. Under NICE's formula, that would make the drug half as cost-effective. In other words, the result would be $50,000 per quality-adjusted year gained.
NICE has set a maximum that it will spend on a treatment: about $47,000 per quality-adjusted year gained.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:31 PM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
How much does the treatment extend the average patient's life?
But ask yourself, would you be an average patient? A treatment may cure some patients, but only a few of them, so that the "average patient" lives only a few weeks longer. This sort of formulation in terms of the "average patient" conceals that in refusing to fund a treatment which extends the life of this statistical artifact by only a small amount may deny some patients a curative treatment.
__________________

__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The New Health Care Law, Health Ins & 'New Plans' dex FIRE and Money 14 06-28-2010 07:36 AM
Long-Term Care - Part of Health Care Reform Bill chinaco Health and Early Retirement 3 07-19-2009 03:53 PM
Senator Wyden's "health care plan for all Americans" REWahoo Health and Early Retirement 81 12-19-2006 09:04 AM
health insurance and effect on increased health care costs Martha Other topics 9 08-08-2006 02:54 PM
Americans want universal health coverage REWahoo FIRE and Money 162 06-21-2006 12:29 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.