Some money might be saved. There are probably some studies for how much. Drugs are less than 10% of the total health care cost, and if changes cause fewer therapeutic drugs to be developed you'd see other care costs rise as a result.
Realistically, it would be hard to make the case for big changes based on a one time cost saving of 5% or so. That's about 1 year of health care inflation. Maybe 2 years.
The main point is that there are no easy wins and no big wins. You can tell a story about much lower costs by making a few changes, but that's not going to happen in reality. We don't live in a story.
Yeah, farmers cashed government giveaway checks. They're no more or less selfish than anyone else cashing government giveaway checks. It's all other people's money.
Washington bureaucrats got paychecks and pensions. Congressmen used other people's money to buy votes. So the 2 main objectives of the program were wildly successful.
No country has significantly reduced health care costs.
Yes, if the US could go back in time 100 years, perhaps we could keep health care costs from rising like other countries have succeeded in doing. But going back in time is not an option.
Based on 2014 figures (the latest I found when I looked), US per capita health care is three thousand dollars more expensive than the next most expensive one (Switzerland). I think saving most of a trillion dollars a year does count as less expensive, and I think most people would want less expensive health care.
Some people say we can't do what every other developed country in the world already does. I think those people are dishonest or spineless defeatists.
If you read the article, you will see that countries don't cut health care costs. They only have lower costs because they never got high to begin with. But going back in time isn't really an option.
You can name-call anyone you want, as much as you want. Do you think that will get health care workers to say "yes" to large pay cuts? Do you think it will convince voters and politicians to listen to you instead of doctors and nurses?
The only facts are - for some stupid reason, we have electronic voting machines - they may be vulnerable to hacking - some hackers tried to hack them, including Russians
So what? If your government uses electronic voting machines, expect stories about them getting hacked from time to time.
Why are you complaining about a single drug approval from almost 20 years ago? Unless they reject every drug, they're going to make some errors by approving drugs they shouldn't approve sometimes. You want new drugs, it's never going to be risk free.
And you are responding to a post where I say US regulators are bad at it. And your point is that... they made a mistake once. Yes.
The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
That's some complaining. What do you want to do about it?
And before you say "single payer", understand that single payer will be a lot more expensive than the current system because US health care workers get paid a lot and they probably won't just sit back and accept huge pay cuts. And they have enormous political clout in the US.
Also, why should the US be like other countries when most people in the US want a more US-like system?
It's not so much regulations. Health care needs regulations. It's that US regulators are notoriously bad at it. My friends in the medical device business do most of their work in places like Germany and other Northern European countries because the regulators are strict, but they do their jobs predictably and in a timely manner. They shun the US because the regulators are sloppier and everything takes forever in the US.
Oh, So something about 30 years ago. it will be hard to go back and elect different politicians 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps we should do something in the present or future.
How is this supposed to translate into electing less "tribal" politicians today? And how does that action cause a good future?
And I would hope you understand what the Saudi arms deal is about.
She stayed there to block the front door closed with her body, as the terrorists were trying to force their way in. Her blocking the door saved about 20 people, by giving them time to escape.
I'm not trying to talk you out of your anti-CIA hatred. Just maybe don't be dumb about it. Terrorists clearly aren't mostly motivated by the CIA being mean to them. Some maybe, not most. Try to think outside your personal hate-box sometime.
If there are 1000s of terrorist attacks in Thailand, and there aren't people "like me" in Thailand, then terrorist attacks must therefore have nothing to do with anyone "like me". And people like you should stop being such a bunch of hateful liars.
1. Take money from people who earn it, give it to people who don't work 2. People who don't work continue to be poor, and their children are poor 3. More giveaways. Because "something must be done" and no one ever learns.
Repeat. Say mean things about people who don't want to double down on the same failures over and over and over.
The only difference is that DUI deaths are so common and so continuous that they're rarely front page news
No, attacks aren't the same as mishaps caused by drunks. Attacks are done deliberately. Attackers escalate. When attackers succeed, they use their success to recruit and encourage a greater number of more severe attacks.
Everyone instinctively knows this.
Whatever your position, please stop peddling the fictional equivalence between attacks and mistakes. It's wrong, and it makes you sound like an apologist for murderers, which I'm sure you're not.
Flow charts are no more expensive than code. They just layer a visual syntax on top of the underlying forms instead of a textual syntax.
You should be asking for tools to command the underlying forms that don't require you to input all the syntax; tools where you can describe how you want something to work in broader terms and let the software write the syntax, handle the scheduling optimization, prevent the bugs and security holes, and make sure all the corner cases and failure modes are covered.
Slashdot Mirror
Every agency office should install a special "whistleblowers only" printer in a prominent location near the office entrance.
Some money might be saved. There are probably some studies for how much. Drugs are less than 10% of the total health care cost, and if changes cause fewer therapeutic drugs to be developed you'd see other care costs rise as a result.
Realistically, it would be hard to make the case for big changes based on a one time cost saving of 5% or so. That's about 1 year of health care inflation. Maybe 2 years.
The main point is that there are no easy wins and no big wins. You can tell a story about much lower costs by making a few changes, but that's not going to happen in reality. We don't live in a story.
Yeah, farmers cashed government giveaway checks. They're no more or less selfish than anyone else cashing government giveaway checks. It's all other people's money.
Washington bureaucrats got paychecks and pensions. Congressmen used other people's money to buy votes. So the 2 main objectives of the program were wildly successful.
No country has significantly reduced health care costs.
Yes, if the US could go back in time 100 years, perhaps we could keep health care costs from rising like other countries have succeeded in doing. But going back in time is not an option.
Based on 2014 figures (the latest I found when I looked), US per capita health care is three thousand dollars more expensive than the next most expensive one (Switzerland). I think saving most of a trillion dollars a year does count as less expensive, and I think most people would want less expensive health care.
Some people say we can't do what every other developed country in the world already does. I think those people are dishonest or spineless defeatists.
If you read the article, you will see that countries don't cut health care costs. They only have lower costs because they never got high to begin with. But going back in time isn't really an option.
You can name-call anyone you want, as much as you want. Do you think that will get health care workers to say "yes" to large pay cuts? Do you think it will convince voters and politicians to listen to you instead of doctors and nurses?
Seems like printers are a lot more secure and their output a lot more traceable than voting machines.
The only facts are
- for some stupid reason, we have electronic voting machines
- they may be vulnerable to hacking
- some hackers tried to hack them, including Russians
So what? If your government uses electronic voting machines, expect stories about them getting hacked from time to time.
Sorry, you're just being obtuse and intentionally twisting what I posted.
Yeah, it's hard to piece together little hints and allusions and bits of innuendo into any kind of meaningful statement about anything.
So still super expensive then. Why should we switch to a system most people don't want to save a couple percent?
... 7 figure hospital exec's ...
And added government worker pension costs will be many times that. Pensions don't provide patient care either.
Why are you complaining about a single drug approval from almost 20 years ago? Unless they reject every drug, they're going to make some errors by approving drugs they shouldn't approve sometimes. You want new drugs, it's never going to be risk free.
And you are responding to a post where I say US regulators are bad at it. And your point is that ... they made a mistake once. Yes.
Because the US is a third world country.
The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
That's some complaining. What do you want to do about it?
And before you say "single payer", understand that single payer will be a lot more expensive than the current system because US health care workers get paid a lot and they probably won't just sit back and accept huge pay cuts. And they have enormous political clout in the US.
Also, why should the US be like other countries when most people in the US want a more US-like system?
It's not so much regulations. Health care needs regulations. It's that US regulators are notoriously bad at it. My friends in the medical device business do most of their work in places like Germany and other Northern European countries because the regulators are strict, but they do their jobs predictably and in a timely manner. They shun the US because the regulators are sloppier and everything takes forever in the US.
*sigh*
Oh, So something about 30 years ago. it will be hard to go back and elect different politicians 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps we should do something in the present or future.
How is this supposed to translate into electing less "tribal" politicians today? And how does that action cause a good future?
And I would hope you understand what the Saudi arms deal is about.
What?
She stayed there to block the front door closed with her body, as the terrorists were trying to force their way in. Her blocking the door saved about 20 people, by giving them time to escape.
So keeping terrorists out of a place saves lives?
Jan 19th: Ivanka orders a salad with Russian dressing.
April 5th: Flynn drinks a beer from Russian River Brewing Company
I'm not trying to talk you out of your anti-CIA hatred. Just maybe don't be dumb about it. Terrorists clearly aren't mostly motivated by the CIA being mean to them. Some maybe, not most. Try to think outside your personal hate-box sometime.
If the CIA is to blame for terrorism, then please explain the 1000s of terrorist attacks in Thailand. What did the CIA do to cause all those attacks in Thailand?
Likewise Boko Harem in Nigeria. What's the CIA involvement?
Because ass holes like you are what creates terrorism
Really? Please explain the 1000s of terrorist attacks in Thailand in this context.
If there are 1000s of terrorist attacks in Thailand, and there aren't people "like me" in Thailand, then terrorist attacks must therefore have nothing to do with anyone "like me". And people like you should stop being such a bunch of hateful liars.
Sound like the plan to wipe out poverty:
1. Take money from people who earn it, give it to people who don't work
2. People who don't work continue to be poor, and their children are poor
3. More giveaways. Because "something must be done" and no one ever learns.
Repeat. Say mean things about people who don't want to double down on the same failures over and over and over.
The only difference is that DUI deaths are so common and so continuous that they're rarely front page news
No, attacks aren't the same as mishaps caused by drunks. Attacks are done deliberately. Attackers escalate. When attackers succeed, they use their success to recruit and encourage a greater number of more severe attacks.
Everyone instinctively knows this.
Whatever your position, please stop peddling the fictional equivalence between attacks and mistakes. It's wrong, and it makes you sound like an apologist for murderers, which I'm sure you're not.
More explanation needed. Who is "financing" which "moderate rebels" who turn out to be "terrorists"?
How so? Please explain how electing less "tribal" politicians in the west will lead to fewer terror attacks and less need for security.
Also needed: an autocorrect that won't change "expressive" into "expensive".
Flow charts are no more expensive than code. They just layer a visual syntax on top of the underlying forms instead of a textual syntax.
You should be asking for tools to command the underlying forms that don't require you to input all the syntax; tools where you can describe how you want something to work in broader terms and let the software write the syntax, handle the scheduling optimization, prevent the bugs and security holes, and make sure all the corner cases and failure modes are covered.
Where's that tool?