Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Monday 07 July 2003 07:53 pm, Stormwalker wrote:
Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head to the nearest emergency room. The pool I speak of is simply that I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have shared types of services and very specific service. I will most likely never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for broken bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we are born.
Bzzzzt. Tim is correct. Companies that provide medical insurance are betting that you will require $X dollars of medical treatment and then charge you $Y dollars hoping that $Y > $X (including the interest earned by investing $Y). The problem is that as you get older, the probability of you needing $$$ of medical treatment goes up and even higher if you engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, overeating, etc.). The gubmint's solution to this is what you are talking about... "Medicare". The fundamental assumption is that their are more healthy people than sick ones so that the premiums payed by the healthy people can be used to pay for medical care for the sick. Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with this assumption. 1) Amazing advances in medical technology that allow people who are sick to live longer, but are very expensive, which leads to 2) more older (and less healthy) people than young (and more healthy) people. If we are going to continue with the idea of Medicare then society has a whole must begin to make tough decisions on how to ration healthcare (ever heard of triage ?). Which makes more sense: Spend $X dollars on some 80 year old's heart/lung transplant so he can live another 10 years, or spend that money on make sure an unwed mother's baby is born healthy? (Note: either choice has it's own sets of costs and rewards). -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
On Monday 07 July 2003 22:03, Neil Johnson wrote:
... Which makes more sense: Spend $X dollars on some 80 year old's heart/lung transplant so he can live another 10 years, or spend that money on make sure an unwed mother's baby is born healthy?
That's easy: spend it on the 80-year-old. He's more likely to vote than the unwed, and likely underage, mother. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
On Monday 07 July 2003 07:53 pm, Stormwalker wrote:
Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head to the nearest emergency room. The pool I speak of is simply that I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have shared types of services and very specific service. I will most likely never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for broken bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we are born.
Bzzzzt. Tim is correct. Companies that provide medical insurance are betting that you will require $X dollars of medical treatment and then charge you $Y dollars hoping that $Y > $X (including the interest earned by investing $Y).
Correct to a point. As businesses, their primary goal is to make a profit. Providing goods/services is a by-product. Please don't assume I like insurance companies, especially when they are in between me and medical services. I would be happier self-insuring and paying for the spikes in cost along the way. I was merely pointing out that, although the insurance providers and others, see the industry as a busines (read quarterly/annual timeframes), this is an incorrect way of looking at it. It is incorrect because our lives go past the annual profit and should be viewed over a much longer time span. By comparing my behavior today with the behavior of others, you get a distorted picture of what is happening. The business is happy with that picture because there is always someone to point a finger at, today.
The problem is that as you get older, the probability of you needing $$$ of medical treatment goes up and even higher if you engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, overeating, etc.).
This is true to a point, but the facts are a little different. The stats show a spike in deaths at age 50 and 65, which is the basis for SS retirement age, and for over 50 folks it's 66 and increasing. The spikes are caused by bad behavior, bad genes and bad luck, but have been reliable for a long time.
The gubmint's solution to this is what you are talking about... "Medicare". The fundamental assumption is that their are more healthy people than sick ones so that the premiums payed by the healthy people can be used to pay for medical care for the sick.
Pyramid scheme.
Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with this assumption. 1) Amazing advances in medical technology that allow people who are sick to live longer, but are very expensive, which leads to 2) more older (and less healthy) people than young (and more healthy) people.
Again, true to a point. It turns out once the sickly have been weeded out (50 & 65), the 80+ people are *generally* in good health when compared to the rest of the population in spite the creation of the living dead segment. Keep in mind that young people stress the medical system as well as the old. Giving birth is not cheap, for example. Neither is pediatric care. If you are going analyze the costs, you need to look at all of them, not a just piece at time. Why should I pay for an AIDS patient? Well, why should I pay for women giving birth, except when it's my child? cheers, bob
participants (3)
-
Neil Johnson -
Steve Furlong -
Stormwalker