pbleighton

Bunk. Peter

Of course you wouldn't bid diamonds, you have five of them, no four card suit, and no club stopper. Totally obvious! Peter

Why is 2H a lie? It says 6+ hearts, I think I can make it, no slam interest, and I don't want to make it easy for the opps to find their fit. Peter

1D. Double then diamonds is OK, but 16 flat isn't quite enough IMO. Peter

Agree. Peter

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12. No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are. Peter

2H, I really don't understand 3H. Of course, I think Bergen raises suck too, so I'm hopeless :P Peter

2D. Pd can have a lot of different hands. If she has a good one, I can go slamming, though the three little diamonds have started to rain on the parade a bit. Peter

Yes, but not by much, as the average cost per unit will go down. You are now an honorary member of the Socialized Health Insurance Society. And best of all, there are no dues! Everything is free! 2% non-claims cost versus 15%-40% will cover the majority of it. Indefinitely. Incentives are the same as now. Providers determines the prices, the same as now. The government provides the reimbursement levels. There will be no bar to people buying supplemental policies (as happens commonly now), and/or paying for services and products whose cost exceeds Medicare guidelines. I think you have not understood this. It is crucial. Overusage depends on benefit levels. I'm proposing a basic polcy, no more and in some cases less than current employer based group policies. Peter

I understand that people are concerned. I disagree emphatically that it would do so. The cost per person should be lower with decreased overhead. I know this makes people's heads hurt, but it is real. There should be no decrease in quality. There would be (under my plan) no rationing, no government ownership or control of doctors' practices or medical/drug companies. This is basic insurance, not health care. People would be free to buy supplemental policies and/or purchase additional/more expensive care with cash. Peter

One reason our discussion is that you left out my PRIMARY goal, universal coverage. 40 million are uninsured, without either Medicare, Medicaid, employer-sponsored group insurance, or individual policies. Opinions vary. IMO is it a national shame. Peter

Why are you interested in one and not the other? Peter

Then why did you ask: On the one hand you are not interested in cost and efficieny, on the other hand you are. I don't understand. Peter

The two are not mutually exclusive at all. Why do you think they are? Peter

Why do you never acknowledge my point about non-claims costs? Why do you never acknowledge my point about differentials in our general and infant mortality versus other countries, especially in light of our spending twice as much per capita on health care (and no, your links don't address them either). These are real numbers, real arguments, and you continue to ignore them. Why? Peter

This may surprise you, Mike, but I agree with you on this. The government spent almost a million dollars caring for my grandmother after she had lost the ability to recognize anyone. The mother of a friend died a terrible, very expensive private insuror-sponsored death in a very low chance of success treatment for her advanced lung cancer. Meanwhile our infant mortality rate is more than 50% higher than the rate in the Czech Republic. That's over 80,000 extra dead babies every year. Nice priorities we have. But as you say, that's politics. Peter

Still no specifics. Unless, of course, you are willing to say that *all of health care* under a single-payor system is rent seeking. This is, of course, true at some level, but it is so broad as to be meaningless. Now, as to your other red herring, opportunity cost: Well, you've consistently ignored the 15%-40% non-claims cost issue (and neither of your links on the French system address it either, not that it would because I'm not proposing the French system) - well OK, I guess this qualifies as an inconvenient truth. But let's get back to your question: Then your later quote: So, according to you, your question is effectively unanswerable (BTW I agree with you). In other words, a red herring. We can, of course, look at specifics of contrasting systems, but you understandably prefer not to. Oh, well. Peter

Mike, do you actually read the posts you respond to? The 15%-40% non-claims cost, which is certainly an opportunity cost, is common knowledge in the industry. I know this through the actuarial work I did. My claim is that this existing giant inefficiency outweighs the cost of insuring the 15% of the population which is uninsured. This is basic arithmetic. Too tough for you? Yes, I know what rent seeking is, Mike. I gave you my explanation for why this won't be a big issue (I would nationalize the funding mechanism, not the health care industry). This is the third, and last, time I will challenge you to produce examples of the rent seeking behavior you claim would result from expanded Medicare, which would not exist in the present system. Just stating there will be huge amounts doesn't rise to the level of serious argument. Put up or shut up. Peter

I understand what you are talking about, and gave you a reasoned response. I also challenged you to come up with specific examples on rent seeking, which you didn't even attempt to do. I wonder why. Oh well. See Richard's I worked in the insurance industry for a long time, and I know what I'm talking about. The opportunity costs are so huge (15%-40% versus 2%) that they overwhelm the costs of insuring the currently uninsured (about 15% of the population). Peter

There will be more health care consumed under universal health care, reducing dollars spent elsewhere. This is the desired result for universal health care ;) The control will be that the policy is basic benefits. This is common under many universal health care systems. Opportunity benefits are relevant here as well. They include: 1. A healthier and more productive work force. 2. Greater competitiveness of our companies abroad - see the U.S. auto industry. 3. Elimination of completely non-productive sales/marketing, underwriting, billing, profit, and (much of) claims processing. As I said before, private insurors take 15%-40% of premiums for non-claims items, versus 2% for Medicare. This is a huge opportunity cost of the present system, which can't be ignored in any rational analysis. This question is only relevant to the discussion if the plan nationalizes health care (the product) versus health insurance (the funding mechanism). My plan doesn't nationalize the product at all. So you see, the *details* are relevant, after all. If you disagree with this, please give examples of significant costs arising from rent seeking behavior you think would be incurred under expanded Medicare versus the present system. Please note that claims fraud is equally an issue for private insurance than for Medicare. Peter

Agree. Peter

See my first post. Not original, but it would do the job. Peter

In the meantime you have consistently refused to address the deficiencies of the current system of DELIVERY, compared to other advanced industrialized nations. So, hundreds of thousands of dead babies until your fantasies come true. Peter

Health care isn't exciting. Peter

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes 1S-P (you)-2S-P-P-P-?. What is your call at matchpoints at different vulnerabilities with these hands: 1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx 2. xx-KJxx-KQx-Qxxx 3. xxx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxx 4. xxx-KJxx-KQx-Qxx 5. x-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxxx 6. x-KJxx-KQx-Qxxxx Peter