more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 6 May 2010 00:08 On Apr 30, 8:55 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 29, 10:51 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Joel Koltner wrote: > > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > I disagree. There is nothing in the bill to reduce the cost or price > > of medical care or medical insurance, there are only additional > > requirements that perforce must increase both cost and price of care, > > and insurance. Further, ordinary policies must now subsidize both > > lower-income types, and the 10-15% previously uninsured. > > > So, the cost must reflect at least the same number of payers, paying > > for 10% more people, plus more coverage for more conditions. Hence > > the estimates of premiums rising 15-17%, initially. > > This ignore the fact that US medical costs per head are half again > higher than the - superior - German and French equivalents largely > because US medical insurance administration costs are extravagantly > high,\. No, they aren't, and no, that isn't why we spend more. We also spend more on ice-cream than Nigerians--does that mean our ice-cream system is broken, in need of nationalizing? > One of the effects of the new bill is to make it more difficult to for > the medical insurance industry to save money by withdrawing cover from > sick patients. That, actually, is already illegal. Look it up. It does happen occasionally if the insurance was gotten by lying. It's also quite rare--not enough to explain any huge amount of money, but probably significant to an industry whose profit margin is just 2- odd percent. The President went about touting a supposed instance of a cancer patient losing their coverage over previous acne. False. Yet he keeps touting it. <snip> > > The most reasonable strategy is not to buy insurance until you need > > it; the penalties for a student without any income will be minimal, > > AFAICT (that part is particularly convoluted--I'm still unraveling > > it). > > > > > Here's how you /really/ improve health, and it has nothing to do with > > > > government anything-- > > > >http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-mortality-risk-spikes-for... > > > > Basically: Don't smoke, eat your fruits & veggies, exercise, and don't drink > > > too much. > > > Do all four and, on average, you'll add ten+ years to your life. > > > That's a zillion times more powerful than all of Obamacare's mumbo > > jumbo, at the cost of no one's freedom or treasure, and saves a > > fortune on medical care, all without government. In fact, all of > > these things are completely beyond government's power to give us, yet > > we're poised to spend trillions trying. > > > The most powerful, most effective things are those we do ourselves. > > So I did all of those things, and still got a calcified aortic valve > that eventually needed to be replaced. Do-it-yourself open heart > surgery isn't all that practical. I took a pill once, and it didn't help me. Therefore we shouldn't take pills? > I had about seven years when I know that the aortic valve was getting > worse and would eventually need to be replaced. This isn't typical of > heart problems - as my youngest brother tells me, in 30% of cases, the > first sign of heart disease is sudden death. Death is even more common a 1rst symptom than that, but that's for clogged arteries. Calcified valves fail slowly. > My father and my younger brother were in the lucky 70%, and got pain > in the chest before the plaque in their coronary arteries broke loose > and actually completely blocked the blood supply to part of the heart. > My younger brother went from pain in the chest to a quadruple by=pass > in one week. Good for him. My dad had the best health care in the world, was himself a fine physician, but even so died of undiagnosed coronary artery disease. (Slow clogging in his case, different from your family's sudden myocardial infarctions (plaque-spawned blood clots.) He was 65. Dad did about half the right stuff for a third of his life. His dad? Also died suddenly. Age? 54. So, Dad bought himself more than a decade. I wish it were more. > By virtue of my more healthier life-style, I've got a lot less plaque > in my coronary arteries - one does seem to be 30% blocked, but surgeon > who replaced my aortic valve didn't see any necessity to do anything > about it, apart from making sure that I was on a cholesterol-lowering > drug. 30% is minimal, and it took you a lifetime to accumulate that. Hopefully you're golden. In-theater for his angiography, I spotted a pal's blockage real-time on the fluoroscope-thing--that 3.5mm vessel was narrowed to barely over a hair's width, maybe 5% flow by volume, tops. He got bypassed. For free, basically, if that matters. Me? Vegetarians have 10% the heart risk of the general population. My staying fit and lean, etc. lowers it even more. And I've been doing these for a long time, from an early age. Heart disease is America's #1 killer, and everyone's got to die of something, but I won't die of that. James Arthur |