On 26 Feb 2008 07:41:22 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Would you choose that 60 million people 
>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single life? 
>
>  Yes?

Double Yes
It gets my vote.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Would you choose that 60 million people
>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single 
>> life?
>
>  Yes?

Because you are looking at the problem selfishly and not the whole system. 
Of course, if you said to an individual that if they were forced to wait an 
extra 30 minutes every day to save a life, they might say yes.  But 
goverments need to look at the whole system in order to make a decision, try 
the following:

How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes each 
day to being stuck in traffic?

Ask 60 million people that question and add up all their answers, what do 
you think the total would be?  I'd guess around $10 per person on average, 
so say $600 million.

A hospital near you wants to buy some new piece of equipment that will save 
more lives than the old bit.  It's very expensive, let's say it will save an 
extra 10 lives, and costs 10 million dollars.

So, what you are effectively saying is that you'd rather waste $600m of 
peoples time, to avoid having to spend $1m to save a single life.  Good job 
you aren't an economic adviser for your government ;-)

BTW you can substitute the hospital equipment for anything that puts a value 
on human life.  Actually, whenever you buy or use anything that is not 100% 
safe, you are putting a value on your life.

Post a reply to this message

scott escribió:
>>> Would you choose that 60 million people
>>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single 
>>> life?
>>
>>  Yes?
> 
> Because you are looking at the problem selfishly and not the whole 
> system. Of course, if you said to an individual that if they were forced 
> to wait an extra 30 minutes every day to save a life, they might say 
> yes.  But goverments need to look at the whole system in order to make a 
> decision, try the following:
> 
> How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes 
> each day to being stuck in traffic?
> 
> Ask 60 million people that question and add up all their answers, what 
> do you think the total would be?  I'd guess around $10 per person on 
> average, so say $600 million.
> 
> A hospital near you wants to buy some new piece of equipment that will 
> save more lives than the old bit.  It's very expensive, let's say it 
> will save an extra 10 lives, and costs 10 million dollars.
> 
> So, what you are effectively saying is that you'd rather waste $600m of 
> peoples time, to avoid having to spend $1m to save a single life.  Good 
> job you aren't an economic adviser for your government ;-)
> 
> BTW you can substitute the hospital equipment for anything that puts a 
> value on human life.  Actually, whenever you buy or use anything that is 
> not 100% safe, you are putting a value on your life.

I hate it when people put economics in the way of human lives. The "it's 
not worth saving them" conclusion after doing maths with money.

Post a reply to this message

> I hate it when people put economics in the way of human lives.

Then you haven't completely understood.

> The "it's not worth saving them" conclusion after doing maths with money.

That's not the conclusion at all.  The conclusion is that instead of 
"spending" $600m on traffic jams to save a single life, we might as well 
spend $600m on hospital equipment to save 600 lives.

The maths is only showing you how bad a decision it is to spend $600m on 
saving one life.  The fact that we put a price on a life helps us save more 
lives by spending wisely.  If you put an infinite price on life, you end up 
with all sorts of stupid decisions, because there isn't an infinite supply 
of money.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes each 
> day to being stuck in traffic?

  Let's ask this in another way:

  How long would you be ready to be stuck in traffic if it means that one
life is saved because of the wait?

  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on this?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Let's ask this in another way:
>
>  How long would you be ready to be stuck in traffic if it means that one
> life is saved because of the wait?

That depends on how much I value life, and how much my time is worth.  It 
will be different for every person, but if you average it over 60 million 
people you'll get a figure.  Assume I value life at $1m, and I earn $100k a 
year - that means I would be willing to wait 10 years in a jam to save a 
life.

>  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
> than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on 
> this?

No, but you can do some simple estimates.  It's going to depend on many 
factors like how often it is snowy, how many roads you have, and how much 
traffic there is.  The numbers for a country like Finland are going to be 
totally different than somewhere like the UK.  Also don't forget that 
repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, plus they 
actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47c4355b@news.povray.org...

>  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
> than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on 
> this?

Here's the ruling that banned studded tires in Ontario in 1971.
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=111434

Basically, this is a typical case of (probabilistic) risk assessment. It's 
an entire field of research and it goes beyond than simply balancing lives 
against budget. Unless there's a specialist of this particular case here I 
don't think that any of us have the data and the skills to run the 
simulations...

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> to be totally different than somewhere like the UK.  Also don't forget 
> that repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, 
> plus they actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).

Actually, they do. The place needs to get cleaned up, there's possible 
need for police and firemen and there's a big possibility to get huge 
payloads for medical staff, who repair you after your accident (if they 
can). If a life is lost, all the work that person would've been doing in 
the future is zeroed.

I'm between you as calculating this. I agree with your great lines, but 
not with all the calculation.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Also don't forget that 
> repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, plus they 
> actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).

  I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to 
>> drive if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide 
>> sideways at a sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 
>> 1:02 into the video).
> 
> You've never seen cars racing on ice then?  They have metal studs that 
> dig into the ice and create grip 

I've driven on studded snow tires. I am probably misremembering, but I 
don't know that the kinds of studs you get in the USA (at least) would 
give you enough traction to make it *safe*. Safer, sure, but not like 
you could drive normally, say.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Also, car accidents often close the *entire* road instead of closing
> just one lane.

At least around here, you get "gaper block", where the traffic going the 
other direction is hindered by all the people slowing down to look at 
the accident. :-) So it's even worse than closing one direction.

My favorite traffic report was the truck on the George Washington Bridge 
(into New York City) full of roofing nails that rolled over. The GWB is 
a two-level bridge, the top level leaving the city, the bottom level 
entering, with tolls on both levels. And the top is grill-work to make 
it weigh less.

By the time they figured out it was roofing nails that spilled, every 
lane in both directions had dozens of cars with four flat tires blocking 
the toll lanes.

The truck rolled before 8AM, and the bridge was still f'ed at evening 
rush hour.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> I've driven on studded snow tires. I am probably misremembering, but I 
> don't know that the kinds of studs you get in the USA (at least) would 
> give you enough traction to make it *safe*. Safer, sure, but not like 
> you could drive normally, say.

Yes. Always, especially on slippery, the driver has to measure the 
conditions of the road to decide the safe driving speed and 
possibilities. *Always*.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>> P.S.
>>> So I am teaching a Defensive Driving course a week or so back.  We get
>>> to the topic of 'things that can cause collisions'  We are reviewing
>>> 'environmental conditions that can cause collisions'  I am asking the
>>> class about the road surface and what can make it slippery.  One guy
>>> puts up his hand and very enthusiastically suggests 'banana peels?' He
>>> was from either West Africa or West Indies. I honestly didn't know if he
>>> was serious.  I try to fudge it.  "Man you're killing me.  Banana
>>> peels?"  He got very offended.  Apparently he was serious.
>>
>> If you happen to be following a certain truck down the hill that leads
>> in to Scranton Pennsylvania, that could be a problem.
> 
>     What, having a guy from West Africa suggesting that a car can slip
> on a banana peel?
> 

No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZ3TTmm0n4 just in case, in all the
eclectic music tastes, no one has heard of Harry Chapin.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:54:40 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
>one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.

I've just had a thought, if Jim's student was from West Africa he might have
been talking about when the harmattan blows. Banana peels might give a little
more traction.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> 
> No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
> one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZ3TTmm0n4 just in case, in all the
> eclectic music tastes, no one has heard of Harry Chapin.

Unbelievable!

And he wrote the song about the looser cab driver too.  I feel haunted.

Post a reply to this message

>  I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.

You're going way off topic here into the irrelevant details, my point was 
that there are much cheaper ways to save lives than 60 million people all 
stuck in traffic for 30 minutes.  You said "Yes" you'd like them to do that 
to save one life, I am making a point that what you agree with is a 
horrendously expensive way of saving a life...  That's all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Also don't forget that 
>> repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, plus they 
>> actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).
> 
>   I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.
> 

Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
truck service, etc...

Putting scott's example together with this can get a very twisted 
conclusion:

Accidents where people do not get killed are the most profitable for the 
hospitals.  Therefore if you get a few non-dead people through the door 
you can buy that $10m piece of equipment that can save the lives of 10 
people.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
> truck service, etc...

  Then who pays those things?

  I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Then who pays those things?

The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the 
accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged 
vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only 
general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any 
emergency services if they are needed on the scene.

Saying all that though, in countries like the UK where everyone is scared of 
driving on snow, all the accidents I've seen have been where people have 
slid off the road at very low speed and ended up hitting a wall or half-way 
into a ditch.  I doubt they even call the emergency services for this.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
>> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
>> truck service, etc...
> 
>   Then who pays those things?
> 
>   I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
> have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
> road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
> that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?
> 

I didn't say that there was no tax cost, it is just much lower.

People who get paid per service (ie tow truck, hospital, ambulance) will 
bill you for their services - after the fact.  Usually it is handled by 
the involved insurance companies.

People who are paid by taxes are just doing their job, there usually is 
no extra cost.  Exceptions may be where you cause damage to public 
property (ie destroy a bridge, etc...).

As scott said, insurance usually takes care of the bills.
Just about everyone has auto insurance - it's required here.
If you happen to not have insurance you get into legal trouble - and you 
are personally responsible for the bills.

The government does not pay to have your car towed.  They just call the 
tow truck to come get your car.  Then the tow truck driver bills you for 
service.

In the end it is through your insurance premiums that you pay the 'tax'.
The premiums are based on the insurance company still making a profit 
while shelling out the money for other people's stupidities.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  Then who pays those things?

> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the 
> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged 
> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only 
> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any 
> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.

  What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In Argentina, I bet they would keep blaming each other and leave the car 
in the middle of the road for months :)

(ok, big exaggeration; but it *has* happened that two city governments 
argue about who is in charge of fixing something and meanwhile the thing 
doesn't get fixed)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> >  Then who pays those things?
> 
>> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the
>> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged
>> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only
>> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any
>> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.
> 
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
"everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved), so each insurance 
company pays some.  But usually they can pin it on one party or t'other.  
Or ISTR there's something called "no fault insurance" available.

If there's no insurance, part of the premium those of us who are legal 
(because, at least with driving a car or owning a home, there's a legal 
requirement to have insurance) end up paying a little extra to cover the 
costs of the uninsured.  Or maybe it's that there's a separate rider we 
can pay for that covers those situations.

But at least in the case of a car accident, if you don't have insurance, 
you're looking at a fine at the least.  For homeowners, unless you own it 
outright, the bank won't lend you money for the mortgage without it, and 
if your insurance policy is canceled, they'll be notified (as part owner 
in the property) and most lenders will send a nasty letter saying 
essentially that if you don't correct the situation, they'll foreclose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>  What if it was nobody's fault?

That never happens, the insurance companies always agree between them who 
will pay (sometimes it's split 50/50).

> What if there was no insurance?

Not having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is illegal in most countries - 
of course that doesn't mean it never happens, but it's only a very small 
minority of cases.  Under that situation it means the insurance company of 
whoever owns the damaged property must pay up themselves - even if it wasn't 
their fault.  Of course you can try to sue the uninsured driver to get some 
money back, but for small amounts it usually isn't worth it.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)

  Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
Yeah, fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
> Yeah, fair.

Fair if you could have avoided the accident (eg by going slower or not 
following so closely).  If it was completely unavoidable then I can see your 
point, but who else is going to pay for it?  That's what insurance is for.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.

What happens is that everyone's insurance pays for their own damage, in 
the event that it wasn't anybody's fault. "Nobody's fault" includes 
things like hailstorms, trees falling over onto your car, the bridge 
collapsing from the flood while you're crossing it, etc.  (Obviously, 
this last one is somebody's fault, but not the fault of anyone actually 
involved in the accident and taking damages.)

If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple somebodies) 
is at fault.

So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You catch 
a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Fair if you could have avoided the accident (eg by going slower or not 
> following so closely).  If it was completely unavoidable then I can see your 
> point, but who else is going to pay for it?  That's what insurance is for.

  That's why we pay exorbitant taxes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You catch 
> a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.

  Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
country which is not the US. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:22:47 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's
>> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)
> 
>   Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it. Yeah,
> fair.

Nobody ever said life was fair.

But in reality, sure, you could be killed in an accident and it could 
well be entirely (or partially) your fault.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:55:34 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Fair if you could have avoided the accident (eg by going slower or not
>> following so closely).  If it was completely unavoidable then I can see
>> your point, but who else is going to pay for it?  That's what insurance
>> is for.
> 
>   That's why we pay exorbitant taxes.

What is the average tax rate in Finland?  Here in the US it's around 30% 
(it's broken out by tiers, so it varies from person to person, along with 
exemptions and so on - I wish it were simpler).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:18 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You
>> catch a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
> 
>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
> country which is not the US. ;)

Um, the doctors get paid, don't they?  Yes?  Then you're paying, money 
doesn't grow on trees.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   That's why we pay exorbitant taxes.

> What is the average tax rate in Finland?  Here in the US it's around 30% 

  I suppose it's something like that. Perhaps a bit higher.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:18 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You
> >> catch a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
> > 
> >   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
> > country which is not the US. ;)

> Um, the doctors get paid, don't they?  Yes?  Then you're paying, money 
> doesn't grow on trees.

  Yes, through taxes. That's what they are for.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:27:21 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:18 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> >> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You
>> >> catch a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
>> > 
>> >   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
>> > country which is not the US. ;)
> 
>> Um, the doctors get paid, don't they?  Yes?  Then you're paying, money
>> doesn't grow on trees.
> 
>   Yes, through taxes. That's what they are for.

Ding ding ding ding ding!  We have a winner. :-)

You pay taxes, I pay an insurance premium.  Either way, you and I both 
pay to get cured.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You pay taxes, I pay an insurance premium.  Either way, you and I both 
> pay to get cured.

  Except that the tax is a certain % of your income while an insurance
is usually a fixed amount of money. To some people this fixed amount may
be very large compared to their income (which may be next to zero).
Paying taxes could be a much better way for them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:40:32 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You pay taxes, I pay an insurance premium.  Either way, you and I both
>> pay to get cured.
> 
>   Except that the tax is a certain % of your income while an insurance
> is usually a fixed amount of money. 

Depends on the program you enroll in.  There's also a deduction on my pay 
for Medicare, which is a percentage and IIRC also applies to those who 
can't afford insurance.

> To some people this fixed amount may
> be very large compared to their income (which may be next to zero).
> Paying taxes could be a much better way for them.

I don't entirely disagree - I think our system over here could definitely 
use some reform.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
> truck service, etc...

Tom, "the people" end up paying, whether its through taxes, or insurance 
hikes, or higher healthcare rates...

No matter what happens, "someone" has to pay, and that "someone" is 
usually you and I.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple somebodies) 
> is at fault.

Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
anymore.  The underlying assumption is that there is *always* someone at 
fault (even if the fault is only that they were stupid enough to be out 
driving in such bad conditions).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Of course you can try to sue the 
> uninsured driver to get some money back, but for small amounts it 
> usually isn't worth it.

Not to mention, if they don't have insurance, it's usually because they 
don't have any money anyway.  Suing already bankrupt people isn't a 
great way to get your money...

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple 
>> somebodies) is at fault.
> 
> Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
> anymore. 

Yah. The TV here calls them "crashes". :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You catch 
>> a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
> 
>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
> country which is not the US. ;)
> 

But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.

People come from Canada all of the time to get more options for treatment.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple 
>> somebodies) is at fault.
> 
> Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
> anymore.  The underlying assumption is that there is *always* someone at 
> fault (even if the fault is only that they were stupid enough to be out 
> driving in such bad conditions).
> 

I think that a lot of them need to be called "stupidities".

:-(

Post a reply to this message

>>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
>> country which is not the US. ;)
>>
>
> But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.

You mean to say that you pay for your medical care directly?  If you needed 
some complicated heart operation and the cost was $200k, you'd have to pay 
that sum yourself?  Or do you mean you pay an insurance company?  If you pay 
insurance, then I can't believe that the insurance company will let you 
choose how to treat your illness, otherwise everyone would be getting the 
most expensive treatment possible for tiny things and your premiums would be 
huge.  Or maybe you can, and that is why the US health system works so badly 
;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
>>> country which is not the US. ;)
>>>
>>
>> But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.
> 
> You mean to say that you pay for your medical care directly?  If you 
> needed some complicated heart operation and the cost was $200k, you'd 
> have to pay that sum yourself?

Technically, you are responsible to pay for your own care.


   Or do you mean you pay an insurance
> company?

It depends on what kind of insurance you pay for.

Some insurance plans reimburse you directly (Traditional)
	I pay a $500 doctor bill myself.
	I submit the receipt to my insurance company.
	The insurance company comes up with a UCR of $300.
		UCR is Usual Customary Reasonable
		How they come up with this - who knows....
	The insurance covers only 80% of my bill.
	So I get sent a check for $240.
	I am out $260.
	The doctor gets $500

Some insurance plans contract directly with the doctor (PPO)
	I go see the doctor.
	The doctor submits the $500 bill directly to the insurance
	The insurance already negotiated with the doctor $300 UCR
	The insurance company tells the doctor that I have a $10 co-pay
		a portion I pay for each visit
	The insurance sends the doctor a check for $290.
	The doctor bills be for $10
	I pay the doctor $10
	Since the doctor has an agreement with the insurance company
		The doctor agrees to only accept the UCR
	I am out $10
	The doctor gets $300


If I have a PPO insurance plan like above, but see a doctor they do not 
contract with, it turns into something like the Traditional plan.  All 
based on the terms of the contract with the insurance company.

This very simplistic description of health insurance plans is from my 
own experience.


What's really sad is that doctors will inflate the initial charge (the 
$500) higher to be able to get a higher end payment from the insurance 
company.

   If you pay insurance, then I can't believe that the insurance
> company will let you choose how to treat your illness, otherwise 
> everyone would be getting the most expensive treatment possible for tiny 
> things and your premiums would be huge.

Insurance companies do have mechanisms that help keep costs under 
control.  They also raise rates based on usage as a whole.  In some 
places this is turning into a real crisis - I know where I work the 
premiums for insurance have gone up 30% in a single year.

Also, some places will not treat you unless you have a prescription from 
a doctor... ie, you might have a problem getting a baby ultrasound if a 
doctor does not call for it.  That's the choice for the place, and 
possibly a restriction for accepting insurance covered people.


   Or maybe you can, and that is
> why the US health system works so badly ;-)
> 

It has its problems, yes.  And some people leave the US to go to other 
countries to get different care.  Just as some people come to the US to 
get different care.


I know a specific example where a person with eye cancer came the the US 
to get treatment that would allow him to keep his eye.  His only option 
in Canada was to lose the eye.



The health system in the US is full of problems - insurance is just but 
one of them.

Other places have problems as well, they are just different.

;-)




Tom

Post a reply to this message

> Also, some places will not treat you unless you have a prescription from a 
> doctor... ie, you might have a problem getting a baby ultrasound if a 
> doctor does not call for it.  That's the choice for the place, and 
> possibly a restriction for accepting insurance covered people.

Yeh, if you are in the public system here in Germany (well in Bavaria at 
least), you need to get referred from your normal doctor before you go to 
see a specialist.  Or you can just pay 10 euro ;-)  It's the same in the UK 
I think, you can't just make an appointment with a specialist, your normal 
doctor must do it for you.

> It has its problems, yes.  And some people leave the US to go to other 
> countries to get different care.  Just as some people come to the US to 
> get different care.

I don't think it's the level of care that is the problem, just the cost of 
the system.

> I know a specific example where a person with eye cancer came the the US 
> to get treatment that would allow him to keep his eye.  His only option in 
> Canada was to lose the eye.

Yeh, well it's the same in the UK for the public system, they have a finite 
amount of money from taxes so they can't go around fixing everything the 
expensive way.  If they cured everyone with eye cancer rather than removing 
the eye, they probably wouldn't have enough money to save some other peoples 
lives.  But, you can always go to a private doctor yourself and pay for 
whatever treatment you want, isn't that possible in Canada?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> Yeh, if you are in the public system here in Germany (well in Bavaria at 
> least), you need to get referred from your normal doctor before you go 
> to see a specialist.  Or you can just pay 10 euro ;-)  It's the same in 
> the UK I think, you can't just make an appointment with a specialist, 
> your normal doctor must do it for you.
> 

Another health insurance option in the US is HMO (Health Maintenance 
Organization) - which is similar to what you describe.
Typically you have a primary care physician that directs your care.  You 
have to get prior approval before you can go/do anything else.
HMO's here have a bad reputation because of some things that have gone 
on in the system.  Doctors are pressured and even rewarded for referring 
less patients to expensive specialists (hmmm... is that in the best 
interest of the patient.)  I've heard horror stories about care that is 
denied and denied and finally in the end when it is approved it is too late.

But the HMO scenario is different from what you described in that in the 
US it is all capitalistic driven - profit is put ahead of people's lives 
and wellness.


OTOH
The PPO and Traditional plans, you can make an appointment with a 
specialist on your own without a referral.  It's just certain procedures 
that require a prescription from a doctor - kinda like a prescription 
for narcotic medicine.




>> It has its problems, yes.  And some people leave the US to go to other 
>> countries to get different care.  Just as some people come to the US 
>> to get different care.
> 
> I don't think it's the level of care that is the problem, just the cost 
> of the system.
> 

I agree, the level of care isn't the problem.  I think it does vary from 
location to location (even in the same country), but it isn't the issue 
with this.

I think it is also the available of choices that drive people to 
different countries.  I know that people will go to Mexico from the US 
to get certain treatments that are either hard to get or illegal in the US.


> 
> Yeh, well it's the same in the UK for the public system, they have a 
> finite amount of money from taxes so they can't go around fixing 
> everything the expensive way.  If they cured everyone with eye cancer 
> rather than removing the eye, they probably wouldn't have enough money 
> to save some other peoples lives.  But, you can always go to a private 
> doctor yourself and pay for whatever treatment you want, isn't that 
> possible in Canada?
> 

My understanding is that while you can do it, it can take a long time 
and may be complex to do it.  hence go to a country where it is readily 
available and quicker.


To bring this back closer to topic....

 From an financial point of view, if I were in an accident, I would 
prefer to be in a different country than the US.  In the US I would have 
to deal with insurance companies for the property damage.  I would have 
to deal with insurance companies for the medial costs.  Sometimes there 
are hidden medical problems that surface years later that you now have 
to pay for because the insurance stuff is all done.

 From a very narrow point of view...
So, in the US system, it is better to ban studded tires and save the 
road.  The government saves the tax dime while the people pay the 
private medical care as a result of the accident.

In Finland, or many other countries where there is medicine paid by 
taxes, the government saves the tax dime by allowing studded tires 
because it saves on the medical expenses that is also covered by tax.

Anyhow.... enjoy whatever snow is left in the season.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> I think that a lot of them need to be called "stupidities".

Or "greedy selfishisms."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
>> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
>> truck service, etc...
> 
> Tom, "the people" end up paying, whether its through taxes, or insurance 
> hikes, or higher healthcare rates...
> 
> No matter what happens, "someone" has to pay, and that "someone" is 
> usually you and I.
> 

Notice that I was specific to taxes - government taxes.

That does not mean that our total costs are lower.



Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Would you choose that 60 million people
>>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single 
>>> life?
>>
>>  Yes?
> 
> Because you are looking at the problem selfishly and not the whole 
> system. Of course, if you said to an individual that if they were forced 
> to wait an extra 30 minutes every day to save a life, they might say 
> yes.  But goverments need to look at the whole system in order to make a 
> decision, try the following:
> 
> How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes 
> each day to being stuck in traffic?
> 
> Ask 60 million people that question and add up all their answers, what 
> do you think the total would be?  I'd guess around $10 per person on 
> average, so say $600 million.
> 
> A hospital near you wants to buy some new piece of equipment that will 
> save more lives than the old bit.  It's very expensive, let's say it 
> will save an extra 10 lives, and costs 10 million dollars.
> 
> So, what you are effectively saying is that you'd rather waste $600m of 
> peoples time, to avoid having to spend $1m to save a single life.  Good 
> job you aren't an economic adviser for your government ;-)
> 
> BTW you can substitute the hospital equipment for anything that puts a 
> value on human life.  Actually, whenever you buy or use anything that is 
> not 100% safe, you are putting a value on your life.
> 
> 


here is something related

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/05/crashes.costs.ap/index.html

Post a reply to this message