pirana

Do you honestly believe that a person can not learn from the experience of others? It has been proven over and over again that a person can learn from the experiences of others and thus it is possible for a person to have a little experience but a lot of wisdom. Not at all what I said. If you read my post, I include aquiring the knowledge of others in my broad interpretation of "experience." Reading and listening can be an experience and are excellent methods for gaining knowledge. My statements still hold though. Even learning from the experiences of others takes time. More time equals more experiences, more accumulation of knowledge, more assimilation, more wisdom. All other things being equal, the older person will be the wiser. If you disagree with that statement, then you are arguing for the sake of arguing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

To get people to stay on topic, and force them to see the rationale, you have to always preface with "All other things being equal." " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No need to apologize. Very good fodder. I'll bet some of these ideas get a few people thinking. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

QuoteA person can have a little experience and a lot of wisdom.Quote You can not have little experience and lots of wisdom. Experience is part of the recipe for wisdom. (Included here is the experience of others taken in as reading and hearing stories - which are a learning experience themselves). Saying you can have lots of wisdom without lots of experience is like saying you can have lots of pancakes without ever having batter first. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So, because you knew Jack, all younger people know Jack? In a word - YES. Unless they somehow jammed an incredible amount of life into an incredibly short timeframe - and at a time when research has proven that assimilation of knowledge at that breadth and depth is not possible other than extremely rare cases. Take the line of thought to an extreme. How much do you think a 10 year old knows? Very little of course. How about 12? 16? Where is the cutoff where a person is suddenly imparted with enough knowledge and wisdom where awareness and vision of the world is complete? Trick question of course because the answer is that it never is complete. Check with the average youngster though and you will find they start thinking this way in their mid-teens and most hang on to vestiges of such granduer until sometime in their 30's. Those who never let go are the ones that never actually grow up. They retain some rather childish characteristics their whole life; with the most obvious manifestations being the level of functionality in their relationships. To steal at least part of a line: The best place to learn is at the feet of an elder who is still in the learning game themself. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That is probably one of the likeliest of universal truths. I remember a few times looking back and thinking "Now I've REALLY got it figured out." Only to find a few years later it was just another step. Another close to universal is convincing young people of the potential growth in front of them. I have never met anyone in their teens, and darn few in their 20's that can comprehend it. And you will not convince them of that either, (that at their age it is not comprehensible). There is strong physical evidence for this too. The human brain is not even fully hardwired until the teens at least. Anyway, I've done a lot of volunteer work with kids, including teens. The part I enjoy the most is their reactions when I tell them these things. It is so difficult for them to get a handle on it, and I do really appreciate those that try. Most are in some state of denial or another though because they simply can not fathom the breadth and depth of experiences yet to come. BTW, someone mentioned people who only learn by experience. I believe that this topic is one that almost noone learns any other way than by experience. Those most open to the idea laugh and joke and engage on the topic without being adversarial. The ones that argue with you about it have the most ground to make up, and may never grow up. They are the ones that will go thru life arguing with everybody about everything and wondering why they have such a hard time building functional and productive relationships. In coaching some of my kids' sports teams I am getting to watch several kids other than my own over many years. I really enjoy watching their attitudes and perspectives change over time; and can't wait to see how our conversations go 10 or 20 years from now. I'm not trying to be preachy about it, just trying to put it in context so as to try to make sense of it. It reminds me very much of studying physics and astronomy. You get your first bites of knowledge and are amazed at what is out there without really being able to yet grasp the levels and layers beyond. Then you learn more and think you have it handled, again without even being able to conceive of the stuff yet to come. Knowledge, functional relationships, wisdom; they all kinda work the same. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth is not suppressed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

There are plenty of smart people who are young and dumb people who are old. Yes, but experience/wisdom come with time. For instance, in combat I would take the advice of a war veteran Sergeant over a noob Ensign any day. I would add . . . "If you seek, observe, and assimilate." Wisdom coming with time that is. Some people reject the opportunity to learn. They prefer to propogate ignorance. What's the saying? Some people wouldn't know knowledge if they tripped over it. Many prove it so by picking themselves up, dusting off, and carrying on as if nothing happened. Wisdom comes with age, and effort. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Usually the highly polarized game of tag bugs me a bit, but I'm liking it in this thread. Very entertaining. Anybody here read O'Rourke's Republican Party Reptile, or Parliament of Whores. I think you'd like it. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just in case this thread has gotten people thinking about actually getting covered, there is a new generation of plans out there specifically aimed at the "young & healthy" market. As I mentioned, rules are state-by-state, and not all permit this type of plan but, . . . there are now some high-deductible low-premium plans out there that basically protect you from catastrophic loss. The better ones provide 100% coverage for an annual physical and associated screenings and labs, a reasonable drug copay (often free for generics), and 100% coverage to a max of usually $5 million - you just have to foot the bill for the 1st $5K each year. So you pay about $100 per month for an annual physical, reasonable drug fees, and coverage for other stuff if you have a disaster that goes over $5K. And most carriers that offer such plans will set you up with a tax-exempt health savings account that you can use to save toward the $5K. And the days of use-it-or-lose-it are over. The cash rolls forward every year. And I'm not in sales. And I will not start any more sentences with and, . . . this post. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Also not mentioned explicitly is that the conspiracy nuts have a pattern of: 1 - Asking questions, but not waiting for or recognizing the obvious and evidence-based answers. 2 - Quickly supplying the answers they were looking for. Some of their preselected answers are possible , . . . barely; but again, usually not supported by any evidence. 3 - From their own answers to their own questions, they then draw conclusions. So it goes like this: "How could that tank of fuel possibly ignited?" (Asked after it has been thoroughly explained). "It could have been a missle." "I heard someone say that someone they know says it looked like a missle." "I conclude it was a missle, and therefore there must be a cover-up in play, and therefore it must be the CIA/FBI." Fabulous logic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just for fun. I think I got this from the piratesarecool site. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Most cool and righteous. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Actually, there is excess capacity in the US. Until recently, it was excessive excess capacity. The only place you will find shortage is maybe in rural areas. Metro areas have empty overnight beds by the oodles. It is changing slowly as older goliaths with their 100's and 100's of beds get replaced by surgical centers and the like. The excess is mostly the result of reduced overnight hospital stays and building hospitals that were never needed to begin with. It is the downside of open competition, and another good reason to go not-for-profit on health care. A group of shareholders looking to invest might have all good intentions on building the next big white building with patients, but the glut of space does nothing to improve the health of the community, and actually drives up the overall cost of care. Think of empty beds as inventory. Effective organizations do not carry excess inventory. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Whether it is a lot of small pools, a few big ones, or one humongous one doesn't change the claims experience of the whole; it just changes the price variance from pool to pool (assuming all pools have slight variations in claims experience). One big pool is not a bad thing, as long as people have choices within that pool. I think universal coverage is a plausible ideal; but if I'd rather take a very high deductible and save on my weekly or monthly premium, I should have that choice. Bigger pools being cheaper may be a perception caused by the fact that most large employers charged little or nothing for coverage until recent years. Most people are shocked to find out that their $100 per month contribution was only 20 or 25% of the cost of their plan. In fact, many group plans are the most costly, because of the rich benefit set, liberal eligibility guidelines, minimal exclusions, etc. With a universal coverage program, where you have your coverage becomes a trivial point. As long as you maintain continuous coverage, there are no exclusions, no waiting periods, etc. The only provisions would be to qualify for upgrades if there were various benefit levels to choose from; i.e. - you could not choose the Yugo plan, then switch to BMW the week prior to knee surgery. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Does mental masturbation count? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Ahhh....so you and Michael Moore's predominant position are in complete agreement. WTF!? Told you I'd get that in. Not real sure what his predominant position is yet. I know from the clips I saw he seems out to bash the insurance companies. Like I said, some people might need a little bashing; but thinking it is all the fault of one party wreaks of Conspiracy Theory. I guess at some fundamental level I'd agree the system has flaws. Mostly those flaws are not created by insurance companies, and are barely within the traditional insurance companies scope of operations to correct. Thankfully, price pressures are starting to create a willingness to change, to do things differently. When utilization (the frequency with which people seek care) is going up 5 to 10% annually, an insurance company really has little choice but to pass that on or go out of business. The price pressure created by that utilization (as well as the cost of drugs, the cost of technology, and an aging population) are finally causing people to open up to the idea that how care is delivered and paid for has got to change. I guess my opinion diverges dramatically from Mr Moore in that I do not think government run programs are the answer. Incentives for performance must be preserved (I love market forces) and I think the government is the last place to look for efficiency in operations. Let them overhaul the rules to make it fair and competitive, but do not put them in charge of the shop. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Here's a link to A New England JOM study indicating cost of administration for US private insurers is 11.7%. The 31% number cited earlier in the same abstract includes the administrative costs of the entire system - the providers, carriers, government, and anybody else involved. My guess is that is the most common way of stating it. Granted, not a pretty number, but only about a third of it is from the administrative costs of the insurance companies. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768 The numbers for our company are straight from the source, and pretty easy to determine. Claims paid as a percent of term charges (aka premiums) equals loss ratio. Loss ratios are increasingly becoming a mandated thing nowadays; set by each state as they see fit. 80% is the common low limit, mid to low teens being more the norm. At least in MN, any carrier running a loss ratio as low as 70% would very quickly find themselves under a very serious investigation. The last carrier our AG took to task was forced to place regulators on their BOD and several years later is still under the microscope. (Of course the loopholes created by and for big companies exempt them from much regulation - including mandated minimum loss ratios). Which seques into dirty secret #2: Most regulation of health care financing is at the state level. It makes administration far more costly than necessary, because a carrier has to comply with widely varying degrees and types of regulation in each state in which they operate. One of the fixes to the system in general would be to level the playing field, at the federal level. Eliminate all the loopholes (many of which were originally put in place to help a single carrier or a single large employer). A standard menu of products with consistent eligibility & pricing. Reimbursement rates based on quality outcomes. Provider report cards for common procedures. Employers fight like hell on the closing of loopholes. Providers do the same regarding outcomes studies and linking it to reimbursement. At least in this state, the only parties in the fray that ARE operating with their books wide open are the insurance companies. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not at all supported by facts. Even if you eliminated insurance companies overnight, and found some entity to administer everything for free, the actual cost of the care is rising much faaster than the overal cost of living (by 4 to 10 times). . WTF are you talking about? The State of Utah is lying when they say that the inmate has received 90k in medical treatment throughout his various incarcerations? The Corrections Departmentis lying when they say they've had this guy in for 3 MRI's this year alone? Or is it a lie that Algier shot/killed a prison guard when he escaped? Which isn't a fact? All of em' are. Public knowledge, unless of course, everyone is lying. Given an apparent right wing proclivity, it would make sense that it's difficult to discern facts from lies. I was talking about the blanket statement that insurance companies along with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs. Certainly there is some fraud in the system, but the bulk of the rising costs are attributable to things I mentioned earlier. I'm not addressing the anecdote about the prisoner in Utah. No proclivity here to either right or left. That polarization is one of the challenges to finding reasonable solutions. Does putting WTF in front of a post give it more credibility? I'll have to try that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So then we can agree that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters are yellow journalism, deceptive, and at worst, lies?" I could agree with that. You swing a 10lb hammer my way, I'm likely gonna swing a 10 or 12 lb hammer back. Moore does take the extreme view, but it's important, because of all the bullshit the other viewpoint shovels out. They've been shoveling bullshit for years, so why are they so damned afraid of a 90 minute response? I've heard of Bill's name but don't know what he does, and have no idea who Glenn or Belo are. I'm only assessing what Moore is saying about a specific topic of which I am particularly expert. Whether or not others, leaning left or right, practice yellow journalism is a different issue. Deception is deception, I don't care who is doing it or for what reason. Why the talk of swinging hammers? As if I've somehow become your enemy because we might disagree. I'm in no way looking for a fight. I've noticed in the dirty politics of trying to resolve the very crisis we are addressing that most of the parties react in a similar manner. They see this as a fight, and one they must win by defeating other people. Their language betrays their approach to solving problems. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Watched Fox News much???? Oh thats right as long as its the right wing doing it.. its FAIR AND BALANCED Not much worth watching on TV at all, much less the news, much much much less anything on FOX. There are exceptions to my disgust with that medium - but they are few and far between. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yes, I do. Detail to follow. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not at all supported by facts. Even if you eliminated insurance companies overnight, and found some entity to administer everything for free, the actual cost of the care is rising much faaster than the overal cost of living (by 4 to 10 times). First level factors are the exhorbitantly high cost of drugs, the constantly rising utilization rates (the frequency with which people use health care, the increased development and deployment of technology (often in dramatic overkill fashion), and an aging population. Administration and cost per incident at the professional and institutional level are very under control. That of course would not sell well to his audience, so I doubt Mr Moore talks much about it. I really doubt he takes a serious look at health care financing at all. Too bad he doesn't educate people while he is inciting them. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

OF COURSE I have health insurance. I got an education and got into a trade 30 years ago, that provides me with the wherewithal to AFFORD health insurance ( BTW, I pay $17,000+ per year premiums out of my hard earned wages for my health insurance) so that I can take care of myself and my family when it comes to healthcare. Anyone that does not have health insurance in the face of today's healthcare costs is not dealing in reality. And I don't buy that crap that it is not affordable. I did without things like skydiving until my children were almost grown so that I could afford health insurance and therefore provide proper care for my family. I am not saying it is not expensive, I am saying we always seem to AFFORD what is most important to us. Holy buckets! You pay almost $1500 per month for coverage? Is that for just you, or you and a spouse, or are you covering some kids/grandkids too? If you have a Cadillac plan, and are getting on in years, and live on either coast; those things could explain a lot. But still, that is huge. I don't think you could even find a plan that expensive here in the midwest if you tried (not for just a couple anyway). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Bad numbers. What's your source? At the least, your bottom number is too high. I work for a Blue Plan, and our goal, which we are very successful at meeting for most lines of business is 10%. That means we pay in claims payments 90% of every dollar taken in. No fancy bookkeeping either. As a not-for-profit, our books are wide open to our regulators, legislators, and anybody else who wants to look. (As an aside, I am a very strong advocate of all health plans being not-for-profit. Quality health care should not be compromised by shareholder interest). I really question that top number too. Anybody tacking on 30% admin over claims experience is going to be priced out of business in a big hurry. Unless it is a highly unscrupulous profit motivated hit-and-run operation. How is that 2% for Medicare measured? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You are correct, it is no more true than the comment about insurance companies cutting you lose in a heartbeat because you cost them some money. Most of the laws are the brainchildren of legislators themselves; often but not always acting on what they see as the interest of their constituents; which often includes the health care providers in their area. Far and away the largest occupation represented in legislatures are lawyers. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley