pirana

That is why they must mainyain reserves. Depends on the state, but usually something like 3 or 4 months forecasted claims payments. Certain groups are regularly lobbying to operate without reserves, as sort of a co-op. This is almost always denied due to the past history of them going belly up and the government having to bail them out, almost always with the assistance of existing carriers and their reserves. " . . . 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

Hyperbole. " . . . 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

Several years ago the Baldwin Beaver ended up on it's nose. There was a picture of it somewhere, but I don't know by who or where it is now. Funniest looking thing to see a plane standing tail-up on its prop. " . . . 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

Thread bump. Come on, none of you old guys has any more stories? I hate it when that stupid DB Cooper thread is always on top in this forum. I mean come on, thousands of posts and nothing of any value is EVER revealed. Reminds me of a soap opera. EDIT TO ADD: Apologies up front for those that saw the thread on top and thought there was a new scary story to read. " . . . 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

Way cool, good on him. We were chatting over a few beers after sunset a couple weeks ago about life after skydiving. I, and at least a couple others, were feeling it is very tough to even fathom not jumping. Now, I'm not a geezer yet, but also no spring chicken (age 53). The joints certainly aren't as flexible as they used to be, but are a long long ways from being any kind of limiting factor. I wonder what my limiting factor will be? I amuse myself thinking in 20 or 30 years I'll be sitting in the door (because it will be just too difficult to move farther back in the plane) when the green light comes on, telling some whippersnapper to make his fucking self useful and please give an old guy a hand. "Here you go sonny, hold on to this hacky, then jest put yer fuckin foot on my ass and shove me out?!" " . . . 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

if you haven't got anything to say - don't dreamdancer, you had to be laughing when you typed that line. Other than cut and paste, you never have anything to say. I thought it was funny. Gotta have a good laugh from time to time. Sure hope I cause a few chuckles for y'all. " . . . 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

A good friend of mine, whose opinion I tend to greatly respect, has the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights sitting prominently on her bookshelf. I would argue that Article 25, paragraph 1 of that document implies a right to health care. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. While the UN's General Assembly lacks the legal authority of the UNSC, I believe it still supports the assertion that health care is a right. Nice sentiment, but certain vague terms leave it open to interpretation and subject to supporting multiple contradicting agendas. For instance: ". . . necessary social services . . ." and ". . . beyond his control." Kind of like those that seem to think the phrase ". . . Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" means the government should coddle and nuture from cradle to grave. " . . . 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, just as any unchecked cost could ruin anybody or any nation. Problematic in health care costs is that they were hidden behind employer and government subsidies for decades. Very few were aware, or even had any need to be aware of the true costs. In the 80's and 90's when the cost of care truly exploded with increases hitting 30% or more per year, all of a sudden it's a disaster in the making. I remember when my brother-in-law started whining because his employer was going to start making him pay $90 per month for his coverage. He had no idea that was only 10% of his actual premium. " . . . 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

This must be the post-an-incredible-news-story thread. I'll go find one. Does it count if I get it from The Onion? " . . . 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

The regulation in place today is a haphazard pile of shit. Very little of it has to do with keeping costs down, it mostly has to do with granting favored status and imposing additional costs on behalf of special interests. We need there to be overall less of it, but put in place at the federal level (today most of it is still at the state level). You would not believe how some of it has gotten in. MN has a law to cover wigs for patients that have a certian specific type of cancer that was inserted by a single legislator to appease a single constituent. That kind of crap has been piled in for the last 30 years. It is a fucking mess. There are rules and exceptions galore that are mostly in place because of influential individuals, mandates for treatments that are proven ineffective, preferential treatment of political subdivisions, etc. What we have has more to do with politics and the sleazy fuckwads we keep putting in office than health care or financing of it for the communal good. " . . . 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

I do not see the desire to have a public option as equivalent to desiring a free ride. Good point, I'm overlapping topics. My contention is that a government plan, unless they decide to play by all the same rules as commercial carriers, will not be just another competitor, but a heavily subsidized program - as are all government run programs today. The only need for it is if they present it as a bare bones plan that would only appeal to people who can not afford decent coverage. If they offer a product that is similar to the commercials, but subsidize it so that it is cheaper, then they are not really competing but pricing the commercials out of business via taxpayer subsidy. My assumption is that everyone will want at least a decent package of basic coverage; and that many of those will not be able to pay for it. They will expect it at a reduced price (reduced from the true cost to provide it) and so will be asking for a reduced price or free ride. If that population is large enough, then the system becomes unsustainable. So redistribution of the burden will only get us so far. Reduction in total cost must also be part of the plan. Bottom line is that I'd rather see sliding scale premiums that make real coverage affordable for everyone than throwing everyone with low income into substandard care plans; or worse yet subsidizing a government plan that "competes" with commercial carriers. " . . . 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

The sliding scale is for the term charges (premiums) not the charge for each individual service. I know that any kind of ability-to-pay based pricing is going to come off as a redistribution-of-wealth policy and will cause resistance. But the redistribution of wealth train left the station a long time ago and is not coming back (at least not until after the Apocolypse). If it were more palatable as a tax differential, then it could be worked that way. We are headed for guarantee issue, no doubt about it. There will be some compromises in order to make it affordable overall, and to make it an acceptable program to the majority. There are going to have to be credits or sliding scale premiums because even if we reduce the cost of care by say a quarter overnight, there will still be a significant chunk of the population priced out of coverage. Think of it in the same vein as the reduced lunch price programs. People with little or no money do not get shut out of lunch, but are allowed to pay less. You do not want to deny the children a meal do you? " . . . 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

obviously our optometrists suck too, because i dont see my country represented in your chart.. and the UK is known to have about the suckiest health care, so you're doing quite good in comparison to them, i see... You are confusing anecdotes and emotion-based perceptions with outcomes measured over populations and time. Outcomes are what it is all about; though the other side of that coin is that those outcomes have a price. We have great results in the US, and also have a huge price tag. Careful of the stats on beds, docs, machines etc. They measure capacity, which is not to be ignored, but is not a measure of outcomes. In some places, especially large urban areas, there is excess capacity, which represents additional cost (just like having an oversize inventory). Usually excess capacity is the result of providers trying to compete, but it can result in adding cost to the system with no value added. " . . . 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

I think it would be more accurate to say that more people want a viable public transportation system to have as an option to owning and/or operating a private vehicle. Public, private, does not matter. When everybody wants a free ride, or more accurately when enough of the population wants to ride far enough below cost that the system is not sustainable; then at some point you have to look at the total cost versus continuing to burden the few that can pay. " . . . 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

If you think insurance companies do not compete against one another, you have a very flawed understanding of the business environment in which they operate. " . . . 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

The government does not need their hand in the game as a competitive insurer. They need to set the rules that create an even playing field for insurers to compete, and act as a clearinghouse, sort of a 1 stop shop where people can compare and decide for themselves. A government plan once guarantee issue is in place makes no sense at all. It is an ideologically driven agenda item that becomes obsolete once people can no longer be classified as uninsureable. What does need to be in place is some sort of crediting system or sliding scale pricing based on income so that people can afford to go shopping. " . . . 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

In my experience, I could get this sort of coverage by working for either a very large corporation that had tens of thousands of employees and could negotiate a great rate OR a small, well-funded VC company that had kick-ass product and was competing for the best talent. Both scenarios happened in the "good" economies, not the "bad" economies, where the company paid for the insurance. Problem with a kick-ass policy like that is that it hides the cost of care from everybody but the employer. 100% coverage (no deductible, no copay, no out of pocket comprehensive coverage) is no longer affordable as a benefit. It has become very rare, but is still available to certain government employees/retirees. They always give themselves the best deal. Those kinds of plans did not go away because of a changing economy - they went away because the cost to employers became astronomical. Utilization and price trend were generating 20 to 30% increases in cost of care per year; and it did not matter what the economy was doing. Currently cost of care per person is running at least $7K per year. While the rate of increase is at least slowing, it is still going up by at least 2 to 4 times the rate of overall inflation; and it will get worse as the boomer bubble ages, much worse. Pharmacueticals and high tech are the biggest drivers these days. Even if the cost to administer universal coverage went comletely away, and we used a generous figure of 12% for admin, the cost per person per year is still going to be somewhere over $6K per year. So if some entity wants to step up and administer health care financing for free, then the result will be an incremental, one-time reduction that will be no more than a blip over the long term; with the real problem only as far away as next year's increase. I used to say the problem with health care is that everybody wants to pay for a Chevy and drive a Cadillac. It appears more and more people want a free car, with maintenance and fuel to boot. Not sustainable. " . . . 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

Medicare and Medicaid are both publicly funded. There are also scores of smaller programs at the state, county and other levels besides federal. We have loads of publicly funded care, just not publicly funded universal care. " . . . 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 might find that once a date is set the roster will change. I had 4 friends totally committed to the activity, but hemmed and hawed endlessly whenever I tried to set a date. Finally I just picked a date, and once it got real all 4 found reasons not to go, and a crew of 4 completely different people ended up joining me - including my wife, who I would never have thought to even consider 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

I have always believed, and still do believe, that competition is a good thing. It's a real dilemma though, and part of the package in becoming a part of a global economy, when companies like WalMart attack with such zeal that their success in pushing prices down results in a large portion of their employees needing to take advantage of welfare programs (not to mention their outright abuse of employees), and forcing suppliers to off shore their business. On the other topic (though I won't use righties) it is amazing that a political coalition has been built that draws from both ends of the economic spectrum while ignoring the middle. " . . . 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

This is getting closer to what I'vew been advocating for almost 30 years. Vote out ALL incumbents. Let them know if they do not stop with the insipid partisan bickering and use good old common sense and American ingenuity to make some serious progress; the same will happen the next election. This effectively amounts to firing people for not getting the job done. Why would that be a bad thing? " . . . 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 the sake of clarity: Utilization is pretty much constantly rising. (Utilization is the measure of how often people seek health care). Cost trends are constantly rising, and are just now showing signs of leveling off, that is, at least the pace of increases is not increasing. Eliminate competition and you eliminate the single most significant (maybe the only significant) pressure on pricing. People need to come to grips with the fact that services keep getting more expensive, and people keep using them more often. Regardless of who is insuring, paying, administering - it is an unsustainable trend. " . . . 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

Quite the opposite. The longer I participate the more dangers I see. Which is to say, the more I know, the more I know about things that can go worng. I've often thought that if new students actually knew about all the things that could go wrong, far fewer would enter the sport. I also guess that some quit once they realize how dangerous it is. It's one of the reasons I am disappointeed when I hear talk of needing to go mainstream, or needing to appeal more to the mainstream. I don't think we should try too hard to attract those on the fringe ability-wise. It takes a certain mindset to acknowledge and properly manage the risks. It is a long long ways from what most people think of as safe. The consequence of error is severe, even if the incidence of a life threatening event are relatively low as a percentage of all jumps. As an aside, big on the plus side is that it has very positively impacted the way I engage in other activities. When engaged in other fun (fireworks, motorsport, etc) I'll mention something and point out the risk and people sometimes notice the diligence; "Hmm, never thought of that possibility" kind of thing. " . . . 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

Glad to see somebody else just wanted to have fun with this. Yes, the price of snacks at the movies is fucking criminal. " . . . 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

Exactly. Do not get tricked into confusing correlation with causation. I'd bet there is also positive corelations between unisured and many other things, as well as dieing from certain causes and many other things. There is also context and scale to consider. I believe that is also roughly the number of annual traffic fatalities. I'm not saying it isn't worthy of discussion, just that it won't convince everybody (and alone should not convince anybody) that we should jump to a trillion dollar deficit in what could be a vain attempt to change things. " . . . 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