• on a comment on puny change means nothing over 4 years ago

    And for that matter, let us do away with speed limits as well.  The biggest stake in the heart of the speed limit is that it did not have any measurable results.  Years after speed limits have been put in place, most people seem to just ignore it and drive above the limit anyways.  As a result, the speed limits never became a cherished part of the American psyche.


    We should also do away with those silly laws against robbing banks.  Most robbers seem to ignore that one. 

    And dont even get me started on the silly rules against drink driving!!

  • on a comment on Bayh & '12 & '16 over 4 years ago

    Have you read "The China Study" by Colin Campbell.  I was very impressed by the book, and the implications of it's conclusions on HCR.

  • on a comment on Bayh & '12 & '16 over 4 years ago

    in a new engine ?  


    Being developed by a friend who assures me that he knows how to scale (he has a software company, so I take him for his word; I can barely spell scaling myself).  He showed me a beta version ~ looked very nice!

  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    So you are celebrating a program that increases medicare costs by inflation + 2% as a "savings".

    I dont think there can be any further debate, because I am dumbfounded!!




  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    great, so perhaps you can show me where the savings are.  should be simple, no ?

    And oh, I am hoping for something in the CBO report and not pledges that predate the bills.

  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    WTF is wrong with you.


    When you are so clear that things are not free, and there are "costs", why do you have to waste everyone's time insisting that it "saves".

  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    When arguing that a proposed HCR saves or costs money, dont cite pledges to "help cut $2T" that predate the actual proposal itself.  Doing so just makes you look silly !


    So you wanted facts.  The only reliable place to get such facts is to turn to the CBO.  You can read the entire report here:


    And a preliminary summary over here


    A preliminary Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate health care legislation finds that the bill will cost $849 billion over the next decade while covering 94 percent of eligible Americans, a Democratic leadership aide told reporters Wednesday afternoon.


    Get that ?  Cost...$..849...billion !!

  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    Get me numbers on overall per capita spending on health care and then we can talk. 


    Stating that the HCR reform reduces cost (as you appear to be doing) and then backing it up with a reduction in the growth rate of one segment of the health care segment is an art form commonly known as bamboozlement.

  • on a comment on You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    "It's true HCR does not nationalize the Health Care system, cut doctor and hospital pay, implement rationing, take away choice of doctor, or do anything else other than nudge the free-market system into a more sustainable direction."


    You forgot to mention something else that is true:  the proposed HCR does not reduce costs one bit.  Everything else you said is irrelevant.


    I have no desire to get into an argument about the pros and cons of a nationalized system, or of the VA.  I also have no desire to get into an argument on whether freeing up HCR dollars would be beneficial to the economy ~ more power to you, if you believe otherwise.

  • comment on a post You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago

    suggesting that HCR be used as a means of redistributing wealth more equitably ?  I would suggest that there are more direct ways of accomplishing that as well.  In any case, if that is the aim of the HCR, then I would like to hear it's protoganists say so!


    No HCR measure can "improve access to quality HC".  That access today, is perfect ~ everyone has access to the best health care, provided they can pay for it.  So, the real question is whether a proposed HCR measure makes the quality HC more, or less affordable.  You can do that either by improving everyone's pocketbooks (i.e., growing the economy), or by lowering the cost of that quality health care.


    Lowering the cost of health care can also grow the economy by freeing up HC dollars that are not being productively used today; so the real metric to focus on is the cost of that quality health care.  In that regard, the key metric is percentage of GDP being spent on health care.

    You will quickly find that proponents of the proposed HCR measure prefer not to talk about that metric ~ instead, they will tell that the proposed HCR measures have all the "elements of cost control" (but not the actual cost controls itself).

  • comment on a post You Fight, We'll Fight over 4 years ago


    the proposed health care reform measures were aimed at improving health (or health care).  The metrics I care for are life expectancy at birth (or infant mortality, or number of polio cases per million etc) , or life expectancy normalized by health care dollars spent, or even just the health care dollars spent.


    I dont care for health care reform that purports to save jobs, or to reduce the deficit.  That can be done more directly.  For instance, the deficit can be reduced by increasing taxes (and, that is how the proposed HCR is going to reduce the deficit anyway).  Or perhaps if you are a lunatic, you can believe that deficits can be reduced by reducing taxes.  Either way, I dont care for a HCR measure whose primary (and only) salient feature is that it reduces the deficit via higher taxes and fees.


    And as to whether the proposed HCR would "guarantee all americans a stable, affordable coverage", I guess that all depends on what one means by "all" and "stable" and "affordable".


    Course, I dont expect any serious response to this!!

  • I rarely read non technical/business books these days, but I will read this one.

  • You must be kidding.... 

  • on a comment on On the Polish Analogy over 4 years ago

    I should dig this up, but I do recall that the great Khan (Genghis) did send out an army towards Poland, on 2 separate occassions if I still have my memory intact, and had to pull back on both occassions because he was distracted by something else. 

    On both occassions the distractions were in the form of rebellions in other regions which he could have ignored, but chose not to...because it came from individuals that he felt had really betrayed him.  On the first occassion, I believe the rebellion was timed to occur when Genghis had sent his army towards central Europe...not a coincidence, I believe.

    Somewhat a case of Poland getting lucky. 


  • comment on a post On the Polish Analogy over 4 years ago

    and thanks for the history lesson on Poland.  Any country that could fend off the Mongols (x3, as you said), should be read up more carefully.  


    Any thoughts on whether distance may have been a factor as well...in preventing the Mongols from invading Poland.  The terrain between Poland and Central Asia is not exactly a bed of roses...


Advertise Blogads