[FoRK] Accidental theorist lost, wanted back

geege schuman geege4 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 10:25:44 PDT 2009

Private NFP's are the way to go, but the talent pool for running them is not
as well populated as FP's.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:

> Jeff Bone wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 6:00 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> This health care reform bill is a monstrosity;  almost everyone who has
>>> anything to do with the health care industry abhors it, almost everyone who
>>> pays for health care in one way or another abhors it, and almost everyone
>>> who uses health care recognizes that this is going to dramatically reduce
>>> quality of care and *raise* --- not reduce --- costs across the board to
>>> everyone involved.  It's a bad idea all around, from being a 1000+ page
>>> monstrosity that isn't even going to be read before a vote to the very idea
>>> that the entity that does such a good job w/ e.g. the USPS, Amtrak,
>>> Interstate road and bridge maintenance, Social Security, and Medicare should
>>> even be *allowed* anywhere near this critical industry.  In many cases the
>>> added tax burden involved is going to eliminate the ability for (up to 60%
>>> of) the current stay-at-home moms out there to continue doing so.  Not to
>>> mention the fact that this will kill most of the small rural providers and a
>>> large number of the smaller urban providers, private physicians and group
>>> practices, etc.  And then there's the massive chilling effect on job
>>> creation and maintenance, as noted above:  this will add several percentage
>>> points *permanently* to our baseline unemployment nation-wide, and slow new
>>> business creation while accelerating losses in small businesses.
>> Do I need to point out that (ahem, Stephen) that (a) the "goals" that I
>> stated in Q3 last year were in fact the health care reform goals based on
>> Obama's comments, and that you dismissed as being a poor interpretation of
>> said comments, are *in fact* exactly the goals this bill attempts to
>> achieve, and that (b) the cost estimates that I provided are *in fact* now
>> in line with the more-realistic estimates coming from e.g. the CBO and other
>> entities, instead of the pollyanna orders-magnitude-less estimates that you
>> preferred?
> If you remember, I simply clarified what the administration had planned as
> contrasted with estimates that made assumptions that may or may not turn out
> to be valid.  It seems that something similar is going on here.  The
> estimates are making assumptions that nothing will get more efficient.  If
> you are going to reform health care, it seems pretty crazy not to insist on
> significant efficiency increase.  As I've said before, there is plenty of
> low hanging fruit.  I'm personally aware of several very common medical
> situations that extract 3-20x as much money and services as is necessary.
>  This is in addition to inflated retail prices vs. negotiated insurance
> company prices.  The retail prices are, I'm sure, used to inflate costs of
> uninsured, medicare, etc.
> sdw
>> Anyone keeping score, here?  Bueller?
>> jb
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list