by MrBill » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 08:47:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '.')..I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm old, the philosophy will have changed, but if it hasn't, I will make personally sure that my leaving this planet isn't a long and painful affair.
Well done, Doly.
You had successfully challenged Mr Bill on economical issues, and this is quite rare event on this forum.
However with
personally making sure... it may not be a working proposal.
Shoud you fall and break your neck (or get a bad stroke for example), you may think, what you wish, but those nasty doctors could carry on drip feeding you...for ethernity (or for approximation of ethernity at least).
Some "ethical gurus" may walk around your bed stating that it would be against humanity to allow this poor girl die, you may want to say
get lost, fuck off from me..., but noone will hear that.
After all you live in highly ethical, compassionate society...you know...
Yes, I have no trouble at all either clarifying what I mean or defending my points. Thanks.
A true insurance scheme has a pool of policy holders, and the cost of any outlays is either covered by the premiums paid, or by the members or underwriters (think Lloyds of London and their unlimited liability).
It is not an insurance scheme, but a welfare scheme, when the cost of premiums does not cover the cost of potential outlays, and/or the members do not cover these costs themselves, instead fobbing them off on the taxpayer at large.
Thirdly, accident insurance, like you pay when you go skiing, is meant to cover an accident. Such insurance is usually very inexpensive because it only covers certain events, and is not designed to cover long-term disability or chronic healthcare for example. So the many who take such insurance pay for those few who actually have an accident.
Of course long-term disability and chronic healthcare, including old age related degenerative diseases and conditions that cause institutionalization are the most expensive. Here either the individual must do more to save for much more of their working lives to pay for such an eventuality through an insurance scheme designed for this purpose and/or such a system has to be about treating the many at the regretable expense of not prolonging the lives of a few through costly procedures.
At the end of the day, you can have any social system you like, so long as you can pay for it. If we could easily pay for the existing system, including the cost of demographic changes with more older non-working retirees, then it would not be an issue. Party on, Garth. Party on, Wayne!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Another Wednesday, another Economix column from David Leonhardt, and this one doesn't seem to be much better than the last. This time, the subject is healthcare, and Leonhardt has an interesting take on a new report showing healthcare costs up 7.7% this year and up 100% since 1999:
Living in a society that spends a lot of money on medical care creates real problems, but it also has something in common with getting old. It’s better than the alternative...
A baby born in the United States this year will live to age 78 on average, a decade longer than the average baby born in 1950. People who have already made it to their 40’s can now expect to reach age 80. These gains are probably bigger than the ones the British experienced in the entire millennium leading up to 1800. If you think about this as the return on the investments in medicine, the payoff has been fabulous: Would you prefer spending an extra $5,500 on health care every year — or losing 10 years off your lifespan?
You read that correctly: Leonhardt is justifying a doubling of healthcare costs since 1999 by looking at an increase of 10 years in the average lifespan since 1950.
Leonardt continues:
There is no question that the American medical system does suffer from a lot of waste, be it insurance industry bureaucracy or expensive procedures that haven’t been proven effective. But the No. 1 cause of the cost increases is still the one you can see at the hospital and in your medicine cabinet — defibrillators, chemotherapy, cholesterol drugs, neonatal care and other treatments that are both expensive and effective.
Does Leonhardt stop to wonder why these things are so expensive? Does he puzzle over the fact that Americans pay much more for such things than the citizens of any other country? Does he propose that Medicare be allowed to negotiate drug prices, or – to take an eminently sensible suggestion from Dean Baker – that foreign doctors be allowed much more easily into the US?
Baker, in fact, fillets Leonhardt this week as effectively as he did last week:
While life expectancy incrased by 5.9 years between 1970 and 2000 in the United States, it increased by 6.4 years in Canada. Over roughly the same period, Canada's per person health care spending went from 85 percent of the U.S. level in 1970 to 52 percent in 2003. Life expectancy in Germany increased by 8.0 years, while its per capita health spending went from 76 percent of U.S. levels in 1970 to 53 percent in 2003.
The New York Times employs Tyler Cowen as an occasional columnist buried inside the C section somewhere, and David Leonhardt as a regular one with his own space on the cover of the Wednesday business section. What's wrong with this picture?
Health Savings Accounts: The Cure For Exploding Health Care Costs?
However, from this week's Economist, Sept. 23 - 29, 2006, (page 12) they state that of the $80 billion a year mortgage interest deduction, over half the subsidy goes to the richest tenth of Americans. Of the tax incentives for employer provided health insurance that costs $150 billion per year 25 percent of the subsidy goes to the top tenth percent. They estimate that the tax code is loaded with $700 billion of inefficiencies that neither improve the quality of the services (healthcare for example) provided nor make them more affordable to the working poor.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')On the surface, it would appear a foregone conclusion. Health-care costs will eat up most if not all current and future retirees' nest eggs.
Consider, for instance, that a 65-year-old couple retiring today will spend an estimated $200,000 if not more on health-care bills in retirement. Meanwhile, the average worker in their 60s had on average just $140,957 in a 401(k) plan at year-end 2005. Yes, many workers in their 60s and most retirees have other assets to draw upon to fund their retirement years, but the bottom line is this: future retirees will likely have to use the entire balance in their 401(k) plans just to pay for health-care costs and then depend on other sources of income -- Social Security, IRAs, home equity -- to pay for daily living expenses