Time For Single Payer System



"Gord Webster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > >>>>> Mic Chek 123 writes:
> > >
> > > Mic> Why don't you guys take a shot at the truth for once. The
costs
> of
> > medical
> > > Mic> care started going up at exactly the time the government
became
> > involved in
> > > Mic> it. Ever since that time, the costs associated with the
medical
> > care
> > > Mic> industry has risen twice the rate of inflation of all other
> > industries. The
> > > Mic> only other field that comes close when costs are compared to
> > healthcare is
> > > Mic> the education field whose costs have risen almost twice the
rate
> > of the
> > > Mic> inflation rate of others EVER SINCE THE GOVERNMENT BECAME
> INVOLVED
> > WITH THAT
> > > Mic> INDUSTRY AS WELL.
> > >
> > > Mic> Get the government OUT of the healthcare field if you want
lower
> > costs.
> > >
> > > Mic> If you need convincing, go check out these numbers:
> > >
> > > Mic> Bureau of Labor Statistics for CPI, Towers Perrin for Employer
> > Health Costs
> > > Mic> and the National Center for Education Statistics for Education
> > Costs. You
> > > Mic> will find healthcare cost increases at twice the rate of all
> other
> > > Mic> inflation. You will also find that projected increases at 8
> TIMES
> > MORE THAN
> > > Mic> THE CPI now that the prescription benefit has been added. So,
> > yea, let's
> > > Mic> just turn it all over to the government. Like P.J. O'Rourke
said
> > "If you
> > > Mic> think health care is expensive now, wait until government
gives
> it
> > away for
> > > Mic> free."
> > >
> > >
> > > Much of the increase in the cost of health care is expansion of services, not inflation.
> > >
> > > Think of all the treatments and diagnostic equipment now available that was not there 20 years
> > > ago.
> > >
> > > Comparing increases in the cost of health care to increases in the price of gasoline is
> > > absurd!
> >
> > So what? It's still a fact that healthcare costs rise at twice and soon
to
> > be 8 times the rate of anything else and it started when government got involved in healthcare.
> >
> > That's the fact of the matter.
> >
> >
> > --
> > A famous person once said:
> >
> > "I can't hear my damn monitor!"
> >
> > Mic Chek 123
> >
> >
>
>
> That's not the case in countries that practice "not for profit"
healthcare.
> The USA has the highest per patient cost around. That's because it's "for profit". I'm not about
> to debate which is better, but there are a lot
of
> misunderstandings in the US that have been perpetrated by the Insurance industry and have been
> gobbled up as fact by the people.
>
>
> It's worth looking into how it works in other places, not by reading the headlines, not by reading
> newsgroups and certainly not by reading it from your own countries propaganda.
>
> The fact remains, the US "for profit" system is the highest per patient
cost
> by a long shot. Do a Google search and find out for yourself.
>
>

Well wake up and smell reality pal. This is America built on the free enterprise system and we ain't
in those other countries. And as long as we live in a democracy, I doubt we will ever become like
those other countries. If you are having to beg for healthcare, check out your church or a charity.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> Mic Chek 123 writes:
>
> >> [email protected]> wrote in message Much of the increase in the cost of health care is
> >> expansion of services, not inflation.
>
> >> Think of all the treatments and diagnostic equipment now available that was not there 20
> >> years ago.
>
> >> Comparing increases in the cost of health care to increases in the price of gasoline is
> >> absurd!
>
> Mic> So what? It's still a fact that healthcare costs rise at twice and
soon to
>
> So that is an important fact, one that we have to deal with.
>
> Mic> be 8 times the rate of anything else and it started when
government got
> Mic> involved in healthcare.
>
> I do not give government much of the credit for the incredible expansion of service in medicine.
> Some, I guess, because of research grants, and state universities/hospitals.
>
> Mic> That's the fact of the matter.
>
> You seem rather confused.

go to those referenced statistics and take your best shot at explaining them away. There is a whole
lot more information there for you to rebut than I wish to post on a newgroup but I'm sure you can
take it all down point by point. So take your case to them for the truth and take your case to your
nearest charity if you have to beg for healthcare help.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:01:22 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:36:40 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>>>>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what
>>>>>>>>we give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use
>>>>>>>>it, they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
>>>>>>>>instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>>>>>>more medical care to boot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens
>>>>>>>of millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for
>>>>>>>bankruptcy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>>>>>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>>>>>>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>>>>>>doctors.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else -
>>>>>be the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>>>>>advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.
>>>>
>>>>Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?
>>>
>>>The "marketplace" remember? Jeez.
>>
>> So hospital A can charge $1,300 for a medical procedure and Hospital B can charge $2,000 for the
>> same procedure and both would get paid? Guess what. If this were true then all hospitals would
>> charge at least $2,000 for the same procedure. For your scheme to work the single payer
>> (government) would have to have fixed amounts for certain procedures that they would pay and the
>> providers would have to take that payment as payment in full. Just like Medicare does today.
>
>That's not how a marketplace works, jeez! Sounds like how HMOs work, though. If Hospital A can do
>the procedure for $1,300 then no one would go to Hospital B and they'd have to bring their costs
>down to compete. Try replacing things with Supermarket X, Supermarket Y and "pound of generic
>spaghetti." The reading for week two of Economics 101 is...
>
>You figured out how to use your web browser and Google yet?
>
Jeff your point would be correct if those buying at the supermarket were using their own money but
they are not. They are using someone elses money. Remember there is a single payer and that's not
the one getting the services. If I said that I would pay for all the spaghetti you wanted I suspect
that you would eat more spaghetti and I also suspect you wouldn't shop for the best price.

If there was only one seller of a product that is in high demand and no other sellers were allowed
by law then this would be called a monopoly and the seller could dictate the price. If there is only
one buyer of a product and many sellers then it's the buyer that dictates the price. Neither one of
these are free market situations.

You may have taken Econ 101 but I suspect that you spent a lot of time back at the Dorm
blowing weed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
 
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:17:12 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:22:41 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>
>>>>The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.
>>>
>>>Legal costs? That's absurd. Even President Bush, the smart one, not the current guy, only
>>>claimed, when he ran on that stupid claim, that malpractice costs altogether, including legal
>>>costs and awards, came to twenty billion dollars a year.
>>>
>>Tell that to the Dr's in West Virginia.
>
>You mean the ones who do so much damage to patients through their malpractice, and then want to be
>spared the cost of compensating the victims?
>
>There is a lot of malpractice. For instance, the Rand Corporation some years ago found that in many
>areas there are many phony stupid lawsuits, such as in auto accidents. They estimated that in LA
>county half the claims were bogus. But in medicine, they estimated that claims were filed only one
>time in ten examples of malpractice. They concluded that lawsuits were "out of control" in some
>areas, but too infrequent for our common good in other areas. Medicine was one where they felt that
>there were too FEW claims. Lawsuits can make medical providers put safeguards in place which
>prevent harm.
>
>As to West Virginia, from a consumers rights group
>
>"Extrapolating from Institute of Medicine findings, we estimate that medical errors cause 283 to
>630 preventable deaths in West Virginia each year. The cost resulting from preventable medical
>errors to West Virginia's residents, families, and communities is estimated at $109 million to $186
>million each year. But the cost of medical malpractice insurance to West Virginia's doctors is less
>than $77 million a year."
>
>http://www.medical-malpractice-attorney-source.com/articles/west_virginia.html
>
>And of course a cost of 77 million for the insurance for a whole state is not very high. That's
>something like forty dollars per person per year. We spend certainly more than a trillion dollars a
>year on medical care here, which is more than three thousand dollars per year per person for
>medical care. That is a bit more than one percent.
>
>In addition, has the reform passed in West Virginia, limiting the amount of maximum claims for pain
>and suffering and so on, lowered insurance costs? No.
>
>In addition, only a very small percentage of doctors in West Virginia has had to pay more than one
>malpractice claim. The bulk of the amounts paid come from a small number of repeat offenders in the
>medical community. I have read, though I don't know if it's true, that the medical community
>protects even grossly incompetent doctors from having their licenses removed.
>
>My point is that maybe malpractice costs are good for us in this field. There is a lot of damage
>done by medical errors. Paying a little bit to provide an incentive for avoiding harm sounds like a
>good idea to me, in this field. Some other field - auto insurance claims for whiplash? Different
>story. But in this one? I don't see the evidence that the costs are not appropriate, and wise.
>

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd061302d.html http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/01/03-
/news/breaking_news/f41dfd0bfcceaeab86256ca2001fd6bd.txt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> writes:
>
> >>>>> Mic Chek 123 writes:
> >>> [email protected]> wrote in message Much of the increase in the cost of health care
> >>> is expansion of services, not inflation.
>
> >>> Think of all the treatments and diagnostic equipment now available that was not there 20
> >>> years ago.
>
> >>> Comparing increases in the cost of health care to increases in the price of gasoline is
> >>> absurd!
>
> Mic> So what? It's still a fact that healthcare costs rise at twice and
soon to
>
> > So that is an important fact, one that we have to deal with.
>
> Mic> be 8 times the rate of anything else and it started when
government got
> Mic> involved in healthcare.
>
> > I do not give government much of the credit for the incredible expansion of service in
> > medicine. Some, I guess, because of research grants, and state
> universities> hospitals.
>
> Mic> That's the fact of the matter.
>
> > You seem rather confused.
>
> I thought I would add two examples to illustrate:
>
> **** Cheney: 20-30 years ago he would have been given a cheap scrip for nitroglycerin tablets, and
> sent home to die. Now he has had several bypass operations, at least two stent operations, and is
> apparently healthy. Net increase in cost, 100's of thousands.
>
> My step-mother. Leukemia. Twenty years ago, she would have died within a month, with morphine the
> only (cheap) treatment. She was treated with chemo four times, this kept her alive until she got a
> bone marrow transplant. After that took, her original leukemia came back, and she died 15 months
> after diagnosis. Net increase in cost, 750k.
>
> Now do you understand the difference between inflation and an increase in service?
>

Yes but you apparently don't. Do you understand the difference between apples and oranges?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:01:22 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:36:40 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in
>>>>>>>>>my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's
>>>>>>>>>what we give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor
>>>>>>>>>use it, they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that
>>>>>>>>>source instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>>>>>>>more medical care to boot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens
>>>>>>>>of millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for
>>>>>>>>bankruptcy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet
>>>>>>>>the Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in
>>>>>>>competition with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own.
>>>>>>>Hire their own doctors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else -
>>>>>>be the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>>>>>>advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?
>>>>
>>>>The "marketplace" remember? Jeez.
>>>
>>>So hospital A can charge $1,300 for a medical procedure and Hospital B can charge $2,000 for the
>>>same procedure and both would get paid? Guess what. If this were true then all hospitals would
>>>charge at least $2,000 for the same procedure. For your scheme to work the single payer
>>>(government) would have to have fixed amounts for certain procedures that they would pay and the
>>>providers would have to take that payment as payment in full. Just like Medicare does today.
>>
>>That's not how a marketplace works, jeez! Sounds like how HMOs work, though. If Hospital A can do
>>the procedure for $1,300 then no one would go to Hospital B and they'd have to bring their costs
>>down to compete. Try replacing things with Supermarket X, Supermarket Y and "pound of generic
>>spaghetti." The reading for week two of Economics 101 is...
>
> Jeff your point would be correct if those buying at the supermarket were using their own money but
> they are not. They are using someone elses money. Remember there is a single payer and that's not
> the one getting the services. If I said that I would pay for all the spaghetti you wanted I
> suspect that you would eat more spaghetti and I also suspect you wouldn't shop for the best price.

Other than it's a symptom of the Bush modus operandi, why do you think the government would write
you a blank check in shopping for health care? It's easy enough to write incentives for health care
consumers to get the best price they could.

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
 
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:24:08 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:01:22 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:36:40 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in
>>>>>>>>>>my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's
>>>>>>>>>>what we give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor
>>>>>>>>>>use it, they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that
>>>>>>>>>>source instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a
>>>>>>>>>lot more medical care to boot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus
>>>>>>>>>tens of millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for
>>>>>>>>>bankruptcy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet
>>>>>>>>>the Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in
>>>>>>>>competition with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own.
>>>>>>>>Hire their own doctors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else
>>>>>>>- be the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers,
>>>>>>>the advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one
>>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?
>>>>>
>>>>>The "marketplace" remember? Jeez.
>>>>
>>>>So hospital A can charge $1,300 for a medical procedure and Hospital B can charge $2,000 for the
>>>>same procedure and both would get paid? Guess what. If this were true then all hospitals would
>>>>charge at least $2,000 for the same procedure. For your scheme to work the single payer
>>>>(government) would have to have fixed amounts for certain procedures that they would pay and the
>>>>providers would have to take that payment as payment in full. Just like Medicare does today.
>>>
>>>That's not how a marketplace works, jeez! Sounds like how HMOs work, though. If Hospital A can do
>>>the procedure for $1,300 then no one would go to Hospital B and they'd have to bring their costs
>>>down to compete. Try replacing things with Supermarket X, Supermarket Y and "pound of generic
>>>spaghetti." The reading for week two of Economics 101 is...
>>
>> Jeff your point would be correct if those buying at the supermarket were using their own money
>> but they are not. They are using someone elses money. Remember there is a single payer and
>> that's not the one getting the services. If I said that I would pay for all the spaghetti you
>> wanted I suspect that you would eat more spaghetti and I also suspect you wouldn't shop for the
>> best price.
>
>Other than it's a symptom of the Bush modus operandi, why do you think the government would write
>you a blank check in shopping for health care? It's easy enough to write incentives for health care
>consumers to get the best price they could.
>
What "incentives" could you write? Are you going to charge a co-payment if the users visit the
doctor too often? Are you going to cut the taxes of those that don't abuse the system? Perhaps
little metals for those that become "Heros of the Medicare system"?

Any single payer system would have to cap the prices for services. Those providing the services
would always charge the maximum amount allowed for those services.

Single payer is a sucky idea. I would actually support complete socialization of the medical
industry before I would support that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
 
>>>>> Mic Chek 123 writes:

>> [email protected]> wrote in message
news> [email protected]...
>> >>>>> writes:
>>
>> >>>>> Mic Chek 123 writes:
>> >>> [email protected]> wrote in message Much of the increase in the cost of health care
>> >>> is expansion of services, not inflation.
>>
>> >>> Think of all the treatments and diagnostic equipment now available that was not there 20
>> >>> years ago.
>>
>> >>> Comparing increases in the cost of health care to increases in the price of gasoline is
>> >>> absurd!
>>
Mic> So what? It's still a fact that healthcare costs rise at twice and soon to
>>
>> > So that is an important fact, one that we have to deal with.
>>
Mic> be 8 times the rate of anything else and it started when government got involved in
Mic> healthcare.
>>
>> > I do not give government much of the credit for the incredible expansion of service in
>> > medicine. Some, I guess, because of research grants, and state
universities> hospitals.
>>
Mic> That's the fact of the matter.
>>
>> > You seem rather confused.
>>
>> I thought I would add two examples to illustrate:
>>
>> **** Cheney: 20-30 years ago he would have been given a cheap scrip for nitroglycerin tablets,
>> and sent home to die. Now he has had several bypass operations, at least two stent operations,
>> and is apparently healthy. Net increase in cost, 100's of thousands.
>>
>> My step-mother. Leukemia. Twenty years ago, she would have died within a month, with morphine
>> the only (cheap) treatment. She was treated with chemo four times, this kept her alive until
>> she got a bone marrow transplant. After that took, her original leukemia came back, and she
>> died 15 months after diagnosis. Net increase in cost, 750k.
>>
>> Now do you understand the difference between inflation and an increase in service?
>>

Mic> Yes but you apparently don't. Do you understand the difference between apples and oranges?

Yet all you have is a cite that the costs go up faster than inflation.

Without the context of what the money is buying, that statistic is meaningless.

You still seem confused.

--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back