Stealthycat
Footballguy
we have that - its called the VAA government funded base healthcare system, supplemented by a private insurance industry, would seem to fit the bill.
how well does that work for veterans ?
we have that - its called the VAA government funded base healthcare system, supplemented by a private insurance industry, would seem to fit the bill.
My mother is on the cutting edge of exactly this. She runs a 30 Doctor 7 location practice that includes some urgent care facilities. In a pilot program in conjunction with government financial support where they have switched to a “membership” (for the lack of a better term) monthly fee system for the patiences. They (being my mothers business) report against the results of the care for the patient base and are rewarded for upward health trend. This facilities a preventative health care management style. The program is in it’s 3 yr and crushing. It’s success has prompted requests for my mom to speak at some pretty predominant conferences in that last few years.I have long though that the secret to "solving" healthcare in the country revolves around rewarding healthy behaviors, making preventative care free to anyone/everyone. It seems that would reduce overall healthcare costs - but we would still have to deal with thorny end-of-life care issues.
A government funded base healthcare system, supplemented by a private insurance industry, would seem to fit the bill.
In lots of cases outstanding. My father in law wouldn’t be alive if not for the VA.we have that - its called the VA
how well does that work for veterans ?
This post is all over the place with bad math and conjecture.2 weeks ago people were saying no way were the numbers inflated - now we all pretty much know they wereRoy L Fewks said:No.
"fraud", by definition, implies intent to deceive. There's no intent to deceive described in your link.
Also, what is the point of bragging that only 68,000 people have died, instead of 90,000?
is there a difference in 90,000 suicides and 68,000? 90K murders vs 68K ?
90K dollars and 68K dollars?
HUGE difference - a 25% error isn't fact or science, its absolutely deception and fraud to me !
We pretty much know they are inflated? Odd how Fauci states the opposite.2 weeks ago people were saying no way were the numbers inflated - now we all pretty much know they were
is there a difference in 90,000 suicides and 68,000? 90K murders vs 68K ?
90K dollars and 68K dollars?
HUGE difference - a 25% error isn't fact or science, its absolutely deception and fraud to me !
A reminder that when Michelle Obama made this the focus of her First Ladyship, the right completely freaked outSo does this country need to go down the slippery slope of making ourselves healthier? A decent % of underlining diseases can be reduced with a healthier lifestyle alone.
Time to get rid of unhealthy food options and habits and start getting people active so we can survive this and the future pandemics?
I must have missed this.A reminder that when Michelle Obama made this the focus of her First Ladyship, the right completely freaked out
Not in Pennsylvania. We have a sugar tax in Philly.I must have missed this.
I'd support a sin tax though, but I think the left calls that racist.
Yeah, the Philly tax is racistNot in Pennsylvania. We have a sugar tax in Philly.
Didn’t big sugar freak out?A reminder that when Michelle Obama made this the focus of her First Ladyship, the right completely freaked out
They do? That’s news to me. I’m one liberal who generally supports them.I must have missed this.
I'd support a sin tax though, but I think the left calls that racist.
I don't remember a freak out over "lets move". I wasnt big into politics back then though. Who was upset and why?They do? That’s news to me. I’m one liberal who generally supports them.
Also, Obama’s initiative had nothing to do with taxes, sin or otherwise. It consisted purely of exhortations to exercise and eat healthier. The right still freaked out
Eh, the usual suspects on Fox and such. Here's a roundup I found after a two-second Google search. I think the complaints mainly centered around nanny state-ism, but really boiled down to "If she's fer' it, we're agin' it!"I don't remember a freak out over "lets move". I wasnt big into politics back then though. Who was upset and why?
I remember thinking the same thing, and then back during the debate over the ACA reading something about how this issue was actually more complex than it sounds, and the whole preventative focus has historically not been a way to reduce overall healthcare spending. But I can't remember the details of the argument.I have long though that the secret to "solving" healthcare in the country revolves around rewarding healthy behaviors, making preventative care free to anyone/everyone. It seems that would reduce overall healthcare costs - but we would still have to deal with thorny end-of-life care issues.
A government funded base healthcare system, supplemented by a private insurance industry, would seem to fit the bill.
Dead peoples health care is cheap. Sure there is a three to six month end of life cost but you save decades of cost of expensive medications and treatments. While I'm being a bit crude in presentation this is largely the argument. Seems to me though that there are other costs besides just health care being left out of the equation.I remember thinking the same thing, and then back during the debate over the ACA reading something about how this issue was actually more complex than it sounds, and the whole preventative focus has historically not been a way to reduce overall healthcare spending. But I can't remember the details of the argument.
Yes, this was it! Thank you for the reminder.Dead peoples health care is cheap. Sure there is a three to six month end of life cost but you save decades of cost of expensive medications and treatments. While I'm being a bit crude in presentation this is largely the argument. Seems to me though that there are other costs besides just health care being left out of the equation.
If most people aren't flying, it's not because they're being prevented from doing so. The most likely explanation is that they're afraid of the virus. And if that's the case with airlines, wouldn't it also follow that it might be true of other industries as well? And that if restrictions are lifted on those industries, their volume won't increase appreciably from what it's been with lockdowns in place?I said “now,” but of course I mean then: then, as of my latest visit to an airport, in February. Then, before the lockdowns. Then, before America’s main carriers mothballed about half their fleets. Then, before the number of passengers arriving at airports collapsed from about 2.3 million each day to about 95,000. The trade group Airlines for America declined to let me speak to its head economist. I like to think that it was trying to shield him from having too many depressing discussions in a row. But they sent a fact sheet showing that in April 2020 travel bookings were down by 98 percent from last year’s levels and that the average domestic flight had 12.5 passengers on board. (Later they reported that the average passenger count had fallen to 10—and this is despite some reports of planes operating with full passenger loads.) In early May, Warren Buffett, renowned for his messages of long-term optimism about U.S. stocks during previous financial downturns, announced that Berkshire Hathaway was selling all of its substantial holdings in the four major U.S. airlines: American, Delta, United, and Southwest. A few days earlier, British Airways announced that it was laying off some 12,000 employees, nearly one-third of its entire staff.
I think I disagree - but acknowledge my limitations here - and that studies exist that suggest the contrary.Yes, this was it! Thank you for the reminder.
And yes, I think preventative care may still be a good thing to do for a host of other reasons, but it's just not the silver bullet in terms of cost control that it intuitively seems like it would be.
You think you're the only one acknowledging your limitations? Listen, pal, my limitations are way more acknowledged than yours!I think I disagree - but acknowledge my limitations here - and that studies exist that suggest the contrary.
But, over time, preventative measures become a commodity. Take the flu shot, for example. Many companies/insurance companies will provide a free flu shot. They don't do that out of the goodness of their own hearts - they do that because it is financially worthwhile. It is cheaper to provide 1M flu shots, than it is to treat the extra 10,000 people who would have otherwise gotten the flu.
And, this obviously ignores the bump in economic productivity from having a healthy society - making the costs an even smaller percentage of GDP.
You cant figure out how governments shutdown and stay at home orders are affecting travel?Was reading this article on the post-COVID future of air travel by James Fallows in The Atlantic and was wondering something:
For those who think the shutdown has been imposed on us by government, how do you explain the struggles of the airline industry? For the entirety of the pandemic, flights have continued to operate, and as far as I know, any restrictions that have been put in place regarding social distancing, flight capacity, etc. have come from the airlines themselves, not government. And yet, as with so many other industries, volume has fallen off a cliff:
If most people aren't flying, it's not because they're being prevented from doing so. The most likely explanation is that they're afraid of the virus. And if that's the case with airlines, wouldn't it also follow that it might be true of other industries as well? And that if restrictions are lifted on those industries, their volume won't increase appreciably from what it's been with lockdowns in place?
Someone wrote a book about it!
Or so:
Correct, same as the argument that smoking costs $N millions of health care dollars per year is wrong. Who costs more in health care, the 50-year old smoker or the 50-year old non-smoker? The smoker, of course. Who costs more in health care, the 80-year old smoker or the 80-year old non-smoker? The non-smoker, because the smoker died 10 years ago.Yes, this was it! Thank you for the reminder.
And yes, I think preventative care may still be a good thing to do for a host of other reasons, but it's just not the silver bullet in terms of cost control that it intuitively seems like it would be.
They would never own up to it."Yes" answers up to over 20%...I wonder how many "No" votes would change their votes.
It stands to reason that as the cure unveils itself that opinions are going to change. For example, mine has definitely changed. I voted "no" initially assuming that the guidelines would be followed properly (even a pipedream then...but that's what was on paper). Today? I'd absolutely switch my vote to "yes"....the cure does seem like it's going to end up worse than the disease. A majority of states can't say they are following the guidelines and are opening up accordingly.The "yes" answer has steadily gained steam in this poll despite this forum's liberal disposition.
Two years from now people are really going to see the repercussions, unfortunately.
See what happens when you trust your eyes and your common sense and not some poll? Wisconsin, the drive in in New York, beaches.Well first and foremost, never quote polls to me. I have been unwavering in my stance that polls are essentially worthless. So I couldn't care one bit what a poll says.
Any poll started here for instance will be incredibly biased and lean farrrrr left. Not one I would put even the slightest value in.
I go by what I see. I see a bar open up, against the government's orders, and get jam packed and have to be shut down by force. That's actual evidence of people wanting to go out and not stay home. So blah on polls.
So long as the infection rate doesn’t surge then by all means reopen. But what if it does?Sorry if honda.
But this was a little too on the nose.
Study Finds Most Restaurants Fail Within First Year Of It Becoming Illegal To Go To Them
I don't own a restaurant but have many friends who do. This was shared by one of them. Who by the way has been VERY careful with re-opening. I'm NOT saying we have to be wide open. I'm NOT saying we have to stay in total lockdown. I think the answer is somewhere in between in how we re-open properly and manage the risks. Of course, it's all in how one defines "properly". I don't know those exact answers. But what I do know for certain is there's a limit to how long restaurants (or any business) can operate with drastically reduced, or no, sales. Hang in there.
The tipping point will be if hospitals start to become overrun again. Would issue new stay-at-home orders? What happens if that becomes necessary but states like WI have had the orders deemed unlawful? Other states are also facing lawsuits (CA, MI). Michigan police are refusing to enforce orders. What other recourse will they have if we get to overwhelming numbers again?So long as the infection rate doesn’t surge then by all means reopen. But what if it does?
The medical experts gave us the answer: we can reopen safely if we have sufficient testing and contact tracing in place. We’ve chosen, for the most part, to ignore that answer and start reopening anyhow. I hope for the best, but I’m very concerned about ignoring the doctors.
Have you flown since March? If not, what specifically has prevented you from doing so? I'm not aware of any stay-at-home orders that prohibit people from booking plane tickets.You cant figure out how governments shutdown and stay at home orders are affecting travel?
Stay at home stopped all non essential travelHave you flown since March? If not, what specifically has prevented you from doing so? I'm not aware of any stay-at-home orders that prohibit people from booking plane tickets.
that's accurate from what I understandThe doctors are decent, but not top tier. Wait times can get out of hand. Way too much burocracy at the hospitals.
44 million people use Medicare. It has very high satisfaction. Not sure what the difference is in the 2 agencies, but people love their Medicare.that's accurate from what I understand
and people want this for everyone in the nation ? about 9-10 million veterans in that system ... increase it to 300+ million and imagine the complete disaster for health care
Govt cannot do things better than private industry can - they just can't with rare rare exceptions
No, I have to go to work everyday. But it's beyond naive to pretend Governor's STAY AT HOME orders don't affect travel.Have you flown since March? If not, what specifically has prevented you from doing so? I'm not aware of any stay-at-home orders that prohibit people from booking plane tickets.
government does lots of things better than private industry, particularly where there should be no profit motive. There are plenty of tihngs we trust for the government to do that works out quite well: military, space exploration, education (both primpary and secondary), law enforcement, fire safety, national and state parks, to name a few.that's accurate from what I understand
and people want this for everyone in the nation ? about 9-10 million veterans in that system ... increase it to 300+ million and imagine the complete disaster for health care
Govt cannot do things better than private industry can - they just can't with rare rare exceptions
Agreed. I think masks are cool. Not sure why people are being difficult about this oneI understand why people want things open but I don't get the refusal to wear masks. I don't mind listening to a good government conspiracy theory, but if wearing masks was some big grand scheme what is the end game for the government? Are they in the pocket of "Big Mask"?
Link to where we were ever fully locked down? 60%+ of the stores never closed. That's the absurdity of the whole thing. You pointed it out yourself, a certain percentage of the people don't follow guidelines in the grocery store, yet you think keeping dry cleaners closed is the tipping point?If you give idiots an inch, they're going to take a mile. As a result, you have to plan with the dumbest (or "most freedom loving") people in mind. The second you re-open, there are going to be some jackasses that hold 200 person "freedom" BBQ's, pack bars and churches, ignore social distancing protocols, Etc.
It sucks, but if this past 2 months has affirmed anything for me, its that a big percentage of the population are complete and total morons. Every time I go to the grocery store, at least 25% of the people are ignoring the giant orange arrows on the floor (and the signs that are posted literally EVERYWHERE) and walking the wrong way down the one-way aisles.
These are the people we have to account for when we're planning how to re-open. And they're the reason I have almost no doubt that we will be fully locked down again at some point this fall (barring a working cure and/or vaccine)
Link to where we were ever fully locked down? 60%+ of the stores never closed. That's the absurdity of the whole thing. You pointed it out yourself, a certain percentage of the people don't follow guidelines in the grocery store, yet you think keeping dry cleaners closed is the tipping point?
We are smart enough to open restaurants, bars and dry cleaners with social distancing built in. We should police larger gatherings in parks or beaches. "Locked down" or "stay at home" is dumb.By "fully locked" down I essentially mean back to where we were a couple of weeks ago. (no golf, no parks, no beaches) But yeah, you're 100% right. The definition of "essential" which allowed businesses like dry cleaners to stay open didn't help the situation.
People in grocery stores don't know what arrows mean. And look at the video from Wisconsin this past weekend.We are smart enough to open restaurants, bars and dry cleaners with social distancing built in. We should police larger gatherings in parks or beaches. "Locked down" or "stay at home" is dumb.
I keep hearing about how The People are just itching to resume a normal life, and that once the heavy hand of government is lifted they will rush out to the restaurants, bars, tattoo parlors and bowling alleys. But apparently we are all being tyrannized by Big Suggestion.No, I have to go to work everyday. But it's beyond naive to pretend Governor's STAY AT HOME orders don't affect travel.
Stay at home orders won't prevent me booking trips to Disneyland even though Disneyland is closed? What planet do you live on?
You cant really be hanging on this can you? People in Michigan aren't allowed to LEAVE THEIR HOMES unless for groceries and essential functions. There is no flying.I keep hearing about how The People are just itching to resume a normal life, and that once the heavy hand of government is lifted they will rush out to the restaurants, bars, tattoo parlors and bowling alleys. But apparently we are all being tyrannized by Big Suggestion.
There are plenty of other places to go beside DIsneyland. You could go visit relatives. You could go fly fishing in Montana. You could go to one of the places where the beaches are open and hang out. There are no laws or regulations preventing this. You won't be arrested. No airline will refuse to sell you a ticket. Yet somehow you and 92% of the other people who were traveling regularly before this all started are not doing those things. Occam's Razor suggests it is because people are still terrified of the virus. But I have to admit, I hadn't considered the possibility that it's because your governor gave you a stern look and you were cowed into submission.
I don't know what's allowed or not, but this doesn't seem correct given all the protests I am seeing and all the people I am seeing coming here from Michigan. There's a disconnect up there somewhere. Not everyone is getting the same memo you are.You cant really be hanging on this can you? People in Michigan aren't allowed to LEAVE THEIR HOMES unless for groceries and essential functions. There is no flying.