This rather misses the point. The poor parents who get the support may never contribute, but the support means that their kids get well enough fed and clothed to take advantage of whatever education is available, and may eventually be able to contribute.
The illegitimate children of coloured US servicemen in Germany, born shortly after the end of WW2, did better - as well as other German children - than the legitimate children of the same servicemen brought up in the USA.
It's mentioned - in passing in "The Bell Curve". What was actually going on is explored in more detail in "Inequality by Design".
Providing adequate health care, early, reduces actual costs overall. The economics of dealing with infectious diseases is dominated by the advantages of getting people into care early enough that they don't start an epidemic.
There are other - longer-term - advantages, but John Larkin hasn't the attention span to get his head around more complicated stuff. It's much easier for him to get his opinions from James Arthur, who doesn't think hard about them either.
has done is to give them healthcare and tax everyone else to pay for it. Wi thout doing anything to reduce actual costs.
hat the costs actually are ?
Rather defeated by the fact that every patient is different. Even identical twins - who have the same genome - rapidly develop different patterns of m ethylation, and can react differently to same drug (not that it happens all that often).
Fat chance of that. The AMA specialises in professional birth control, prec isely to maximise the earning capacity of the graduated doctors who form th eir membership. They don't call it birth control - the way they tell it, it 's all about maintaining the quality of the profession - but that's pure sp in.
l and should be illegal.
Big pharma does specialise in the diseases of the rich, who can afford to p ay big bucks for their "silver bullets". There are now charities who work o n cures for diseases of the poor, but they don't have the same resources .. .
Bill and Melinda Gates are doing good things for malaria and TB sufferers, but there are plenty of other diseases that need the same kind of attention .
Not really. If cost savings were the only criteria, it would be cheaper for the government to kill off recipients. It can be argued that if the government promoted the consumption of cigarettes, sugar, alcohol, etc, there would be significant cost savings in long term medical care. Such things tend to produce expensive degenerative diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and blood/liver problems, which usually occur at end-of-life.
Yep. Epidemics are a bad thing, but they sure sell substantial amounts of marginally effective pharmaceuticals. Again, solely on the basis of cost, it would be cheaper and easier to aid natural selection and simply execute anyone caught with the disease. The survivors will consider themselves lucky, possibly immune, and fortunate in not having to pay the medical bills of the recently deceased.
I'm sorry, but my attention span is also rather short. Therefore, I don't have any time or interest in reading your personal assaults.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ettes, sugar, alcohol, etc, there would be significant cost savings in long term medical care. Such things tend to produce expensive degenerative diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and blood/liver problems, which usually occur at end-of-life.
Many years ago the - left of centre - Guardian newspaper in the UK publishe d a piece which argued that cigarettes mostly killed off people soon after they'd started collecting the old age pension. Since there isn't a lot the medical profession can do to slow down lung cancer, their terminal care was relatively cheap, and government revenue would thus be maximised by encour aging smoking.
Alcohol tends to start killing people earlier - while they are still tax-pa yers, so it may not be such a good idea to encourage drinking.
Sugar is a perfectly satisfactory source of calories. Too much is bad for y ou, but only in the sense that it discourages you from eating a better bala nced diet which would include more of the proteins, fats, vitamins and trac e minerals that you also need.
vantages of getting people into care early enough that they don't start an epidemic.
f marginally effective pharmaceuticals. Again, solely on the basis of cost , it would be cheaper and easier to aid natural selection and simply execut e anyone caught with the disease. The survivors will consider themselves l ucky, possibly immune, and fortunate in not having to pay the medical bills of the recently deceased.
Same problem as above. Killing off potential tax-payers is bad economics, a nd there's the additional problem that if you start executing the sick, the y have a motive to move around, maximising the number of people they infect before they succumb to the disease or your executioners. It may be more ex pensive to lock them up in an isolation ward and care for them until die or recover, but - over all - it's a more cost-effective approach.
ttention span to get his head around more complicated stuff. It's much easi er for him to get his opinions from James Arthur, who doesn't think hard ab out them either.
t have any time or interest in reading your personal assaults.
But you did have the time to read and react to that one. The broader point is that the right-wing nitwit assaults on Obamacare are amazingly narrow an d superficial.
-- "Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it." (Stephen Leacock)
An interesting claim, but since you don't specify what it is that I ought to have known about, this looks more like vulgar abuse than a serious contribution to the debate, not that we'd expect one from you, anyway.
We have a miscommunication here. Where did I say I had to pay the fine? I don't, I have insurance. Also it's no longer a fine it is a tax. The hidden tax is the inflated premiums on Obamacare policies. So tell me how I mislead you, I don't see it. Mikek
PS. you should not have clipped out the part you disagree with, then maybe I would see where the misunderstanding is.
I did not specify what you are ignorant about because most of the readers here know or can figure it out. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you could figure it out.
Your claim was exactly what I have come to expect from you.
The presumption is that elderly recipients have already provided the necessary funds during their working life and contribute less as they become older. Should they contract some expensive chronic malady, their contributions, structured as some manner of insurance plan, should be able to pay for their medical care. However, since the money has already been spent or reallocated by congress to fund unrelated programs, the bulk of the expenses will need to be paid by those currently working. Since the only way to increase program funding is to tax everyone, which is what Obamacare provides, the only other alternative is to decrease expenses. We'll soon see the effectiveness of underpaying the doctors and hospitals. Eventually, I expect to see the reduction is costs provided by age limits, per person expense limits, and reduction in covered procedures. If, as you suggest, that the continued payment of taxes is a proper goal for keeping the citizenry alive, then you might as well exterminate the senior and retired population, who generally contribute little in the way of taxes, and constitute the major financial drain on the program. My suggestion of the government promoting smoking, drinking, and gluttony simply expedite this lofty goal.
That's precisely what I suggested. While politically inexpedient, terminal lung cancer patients do vote, and in sufficient quantity could constitute a substantial lobby, PAC, or voting block.
Incidence of new cases of lung cancer: (click on number of new cases and deaths). Looks like 65-74 age group has about 1/3 of the cases. With a 5 year survival rate of 16.6%, promoting lung cancer is a fairly efficient way of reducing health care program costs.
True. While alcohol is not as effective as lung cancer due to a higher survival rate, the number and variety of ailments that are aggravated by alcohol are quite effective at reducing lifespan. Throw in drunk driving, on the household accidents, and bad decisions should be a sufficient justification for a nation program to reduce health care costs by promoting alcoholism. I don't have the necessary statistics to backup my assertion, but can probably excavate them with Google.
True. Anything in excess can be considered detrimental to ones health. In terms of over consumption, sugar ranks highest on the list with salt a close second. For men, the AHA recommended daily dose is
150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons (at about 16 calories per teaspoon). My guess is that I consume about 10 times that amount in various sugars. It may shorten my lifespan, but life is not worth living without ice cream, soda pop, and cookies.
A non-working taxpayer does not pay taxes. While sick pay does help to maintain the governments share of one's income, it is not a long term solution. Voting and other transportation sensitive activities do tend to fall off drastically during epidemics.
Isolating and sometimes executing those with a communicable disease was the best available option since the black death in the middle ages. Leprosy was treated in that manner until fairly recently. The fact that we're still here is sufficient testimony as to its effectiveness.
However the big problem with executing epidemic victims are who is going to do it, and where should it be done? Finding a professional executioner, that is immune to the disease is difficult. Disposal of the corpse can also be a problem. The current method of transporting victims to hospitals, which offer central disposal facilities, is workable, but inefficient. Perhaps the method suggested in Soylent Green would work.
True. However, my brain function was temporarily impaired by an overdose of inhaled narcotics, non-medicinal spirits, and sweets to resist the temptation to comment. Rest assured, it won't happen again.
Apparently, I've failed to make my point. I recognize your right to having opinions. I also appreciate the time that you spend occasionally substantiating those opinions. What I fail to appreciate is when your opinions includes derogatory comments on the character and competence of those who fail to appreciate your judgments. If you fail to make your point or substantiate it, you add little to the discussion by assaulting those involved. If you expect respect from those with which you discuss, it would helpful if you would offer the same in kind.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Incidentally, my guess(tm) is that it will morph into a fee instead of a tax. There are specific limitations on what various governments can do to raise or assess taxes. Enacting fees in a form that otherwise looks like a tax is currently a legal unknown. The Peoples Republic of California recently attempted that by assessing a fee to do an end run around the inability to fund fire prevention by increasing taxes. Whether this principle holds up in the courts is still an open question. However, if it does, my guess(tm) is that fees will become a common replacement for difficult to enact taxes and fund marginal programs.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Yes, that's true. I don't know of any government services program that has genuinely reduced costs. Normally, any revenue growth is immediately consumed by bureaucratic expansion. The assumption is that the program must spend all the available funds for the year to insure that subsequent annual funding levels are maintained. Spend it or lose it. Therefore, with the cost to the taxpayers for health insurance remaining constant, or more likely continually increasing, a reduction in the number of beneficiaries will only produce a reduction in beneficiary payments, with no decrease in costs to the taxpayers.
Thank you for the correction.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Funny you should choose that particular claim - it is fairly well known and actually uncontroversial most places. Pharmaceutical companies do target diseases where the patients can pay, and so tend to neglect those more characterisitic of the "third world". Even that arch-capitalist Bill Gates has dedicated a big chunk of his personal fortune to remedying the problem. I.e. there is no money in it, so it has to be financed by charities.
I see you did not trademark this paragraph, I may have to use it over on rec.boats. There are a few there that have no argument, other than you're a dirty rotten scoundrel or worse. :-) Mikek
It's unlikely. If doctors and hospitals don't get paid what they think is e nough, they demand bribes, and sick people cough up.
shed a piece which argued that cigarettes mostly killed off people soon aft er they'd started collecting the old age pension. Since there isn't a lot t he medical profession can do to slow down lung cancer, their terminal care was relatively cheap, and government revenue would thus be maximised by enc ouraging smoking.
al lung cancer patients do vote, and in sufficient quantity could constitut e a substantial lobby, PAC, or voting block.
In fact it's their friends and relatives who get restive.
But not politically feasible.
The Guardian article was in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal ".
formatting link
-payers, so it may not be such a good idea to encourage drinking.
urvival rate, the number and variety of ailments that are aggravated by al cohol are quite effective at reducing lifespan. Throw in drunk driving, on the household accidents, and bad decisions shouldbe a sufficient justifica tion for a nation program to reduce health care costs by promoting alcoholi sm. I don't have the necessary statistics to backup my assertion, but can probably excavate them with Google.
Why bother, You can't write as well as Jonathan Swift.
r you, but only in the sense that it discourages you from eating a better b alanced diet which would include more of the proteins, fats, vitamins and t race minerals that you also need.
In terms of over consumption, sugar ranks highest on the list with salt a close second. For men, the AHA recommended daily dose is 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons (at about 16 calories per teaspoon).
It may shorten my lifespan, but life is not worth living without ice cream , soda pop, and cookies.
Bizarre behaviour in an adult.
advantages of getting people into care early enough that they don't start an epidemic.
s of marginally effective pharmaceuticals. Again, solely on the basis of c ost, it would be cheaper and easier to aid natural selection and simply exe cute anyone caught with the disease. The survivors will consider themselve s lucky, possibly immune, and fortunate in not having to pay the medical bi lls of the recently deceased.
, and there's the additional problem that if you start executing the sick, they have a motive to move around, maximising the number of people they inf ect before they succumb to the disease or your executioners. It may be more expensive to lock them up in an isolation ward and care for them until die or recover, but - over all - it's a more cost-effective approach.
Few epidemic diseases prevent people from working for any length of time - they either die or recover. TB may be an exception, but you can work until you start coughing up blood.
e, it is not a long term solution. Voting and other transportation sensiti ve activities do tend to fall off drastically during epidemics.
Which tend to be brief episodes.
he best available option since the black death in the middle ages. Leprosy was treated in that manner until fairly recently.
I don't think that anybody executed lepers. Isolation was popular.
eness.
Few diseases kill everybody. The Black Death killed off about half the popu lation when it first hit Europe, but killed off fewer and fewer as time wen t on. Darwinian selection works.
to do it, and where should it be done? Finding a professional executioner, that is immune to the disease is difficult.
Less so than finding nurses to nurse the sick, as executioners are only bri efly exposed to infection.
That was managed during the Black Death - somebody is always hungry or gree dy enough to be bribed into taking on risky jobs.
ral disposal facilities, is workable, but inefficient. Perhaps the method suggested in Soylent Green would work.
You'd need to be very confident that the disease causing agents were destro yed - recycling them into the food chain would be foolish.
of inhaled narcotics, non-medicinal spirits, and sweets to resist the temp tation to comment. Rest assured, it won't happen again.
I doubt if I can rely on that. Self-inflicted temporary brain damage tends to recur.
Obamacare are amazingly narrow and superficial.
ng opinions. I also appreciate the time that you spendoccasionally substan tiating those opinions. What I fail to appreciate is when your opinions in cludes derogatory comments on the character and competence of those who fai l to appreciate your judgments. If youfail to make your point or substanti ate it, you add little to the discussion by assaulting those involved. If you expect respect from those with which you discuss, it would helpful if y ou would offer the same in kind.
I'm happy to respect those who do discuss matters. I'm unwilling to offer t hat respect to those who argue by insolent assertion, and keep on making th e same mindless mistakes, year after year.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.