On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:32:36 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> Where we differ, is on the role of the state in helping people. While it
> may=20
> sound good in theory, the unintended consequences quickly wipe out any=20
> benefits. Take the $729,000 bill, for example. Just think about it: what=
=20
> could the hospital have done to Steve, to rack up such insane bill? Why
> do=20
> things cost so much?*

I stand by my statement - if ANY of your basic principles had been in
place, the chain of care would have broken and Steve would be dead.

As far as the hospital bill - I saw the level of care and amount of
equipment used, and it was quite significant. And the $729,000 bill was
retail - if he had paid it as an individual. The state gets a heavily
discounted rate. A rough estimate based on questions I asked my
physician is that the state would only pay about $225,000

So as far as prices being affordable to anyone to just pay with cash or
the charity of friends, I can't envision any system that would make that
possible. I saw the amount of equipment hooked up to him and the level
of care, especially in the first three weeks, it was impressive. At
$225,000 the state is getting a pretty reasonable deal. Remember that
also includes implanting a defibrillator.

I want America to move toward everyone having a safety net. You want the
market to govern, which to me is like life in the jungle. There's no way
we can ever agree on social/economic/political issues.

Enough has been said over the last few days. It's time to move forward
and never do this again.

Best regards,

Bob



--=20
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.