JayB

Not only that, but he fails to address any of my arguments while calling me ignorant. Does a list of patents refute even the last of at least four basic points I made? No. He doesn't state that those patents, or which ones, were obtained by private companies not funded by government grants. I'd be the first one to admit that I am no expert in this area, but the inept attempt to "rebut" my statements makes me wonder just how much of an expert JayB is, too. Here's the "argument" that I was rebutting: "Market competition generates new medicine for erectile disfunction..." How well does the list of drugs brought to market between 1995-2007 actually jive with the claim that in the absence of government compulsion, the pharmaceutical industry will fritter away valuable research money on trivial maladies and ignore serious diseases? With regards to Viagra, were you aware of the fact that the drug in question - sildenafil - was actually developed to treat hypertension and angina - and the effect on impotence was only discovered as a side effect during trials? Or that minoxidil was developed to treat high blood pressue, and that it's effect on male pattern baldness was a side effect that they discovered during clinical trials? That finasteride/propecia was developed to treat enlarged prostates and...you get the idea, I hope. You also seem to have little appreciation for the difference between identifying a potential therapeutic target in a lab undertaking basic research, and translating that discovery into a drug that exploits that target. The process is neither automatic, nor trivial, and both this process and bringing the drug to market require a set of capacities and involves a set of challenges quite different from those associated with administering an academic laboratory. Ditto for the role that the profits, personnel, facilities, equipment maintained by some of the drugs that you deride play in supporting research into diseases that the unaflicted deem worthy of consideration. Ditto for the role that profits play in attracting the capital necessary to finance the development of new drugs. Has basic research conducted in non-commercial settings been necessary for the discovery and development of new drugs and devices been necessary? Absolutely. Sufficient? No way. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on these matters by any means, but I'm pretty confident that I'm way more qualified to comment on them than you are.

Been interesting to follow the Booth Creek --->CNL Income Properties ---> Boyne Mountain baton passage this year. Booth Creek/CNL-Income-Holdings doubled the price of season passes for Loon/Waterville this year, and it'll be interesting to see whether or not Boyne follows their lead on this one. Could be that selling half the season passes for twice the price will make them break even in season-pass-revenue terms, but I have to think that concession and other visitation based revenue will take a bit of a hit. Also wondering if the $14mil Kenny Salvini judgment has anything to do with CNL-Income's decision to sell. Rumor on the parkrat board was that all Boyne Mountain resorts would be killing off their parks except for rails/boxes. Doubt that one - but that would be kind of funny since I think that rails are much more inherently dangerous than jumps, and are much more likely to injure non park-rat types that give them a shot... It would be interesting to see what would happen to visitation at resorts that have have a weak-to-nonexistent natural snowpack, weak terrain, icy-conditions, and expensive tickets. Maybe ski-ballet will have a resurgence and fill the void if that state of affairs ever comes to pass.

Where indeed. Nice to see the escalating concentric spiral of passive aggression wind ever higher.

Since this avatar was originally created by Chuck, this post raises two possibilities: 1). Chuck can pass for a female hippie. Quite unlikely. 2). The aforementioned female hippie reads this site and somehow acquired access to Chuck's login/password and found using them much more timely and convenient than registering and creating her own ID for the purposes of responding to Pogrom420/Mark. 3). Chuck is channelling the essence of the female hippie and engaging in a bit of creative fiction by posting a response on her behalf as though it was written by her. 4). Someone other than Chuck has access to the Al_Pine avatar and composed the post in question. Place your bets....

So did Pogrom explain why he had no intention of moving his truck to the said hippie, or move his truck without saying anything out loud, and then proceed to rant about the incident on an internet forum that he can be assured the said hippie will never actually see?

Yes. Fat Skis + too many people + way overconcentrated high speed lift system = maybe 5-10 powder runs for your money. It's standard at any N. American resort with "decent" terrain (all 3 of them) No fucking thank you. I like the tuck-skate-boot triathalon to hit the last of bit of snow in the sequential decimation scheme. Actually - most of the time I've been able to find fresh snow all day with the help of 5-10 minute hikes, and 2-3 days later with a ~30 minute hike. Terrain Wise, what are the three? Jackson Hole, Whistler/Blackcomb, and Snowbird? Crystal makes the cut on my personal list, but I continue to hope that it stays off of everyone else's who doesn't already feel the same way.

I think it is more accurate to say that most major advances in medicine have come from coodinated and mostly government efforts. Here is a relevant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association Medical Marvels: The 100 Greatest Advances in Medicine ... The authors assert that unbridled market forces restrict discovery and dissemination of knowledge I don't subsrcribe, so I cant actually call it up, but the synopsis sounds like it is consistent with other things I've read on this topic. Most advances in public health also come from government efforts. For example: who wiped out Polio or TB? Hint: not the free market. Market competition generates new medicine for erectile disfunction, or ever more clinics with MRI machines that are used over and over again when the result of the tests most often have no affect on the treatment prescribed but the tests cost thousands of dollars. There's a one-page review of the book here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1555657 Here's a list of new drugs approved for 2007: * Fenofibrate; For the treatment of hyperlipidemia, dyslipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia; LifeCycle Pharma; Approved August 2007 * Letairis (ambrisentan); For the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension; Gilead; Approved June 2007 * Soliris (eculizumab); For the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria; Alexion Pharm; Approved March 2007 * Tekturna (aliskiren); For the treatment of hypertension; Novartis Pharms; Approved March 2007 Dental/Maxillofacial Surgery No approvals recorded to date in this area. Dermatology/Plastic Surgery * Altabax (retapamulin); For the treatment of impetigo due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes; Glaxo; Approved April 2007 * Extina (ketoconazole); For the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis; Stiefel; Approved June 2007 * Xyzal (levocetirizine dihydrochloride); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and urticaria; UCB Inc.; Approved May 2007 Endocrinology * Evamist (estradiol); For the treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause; Vivus; Approved July 2007 * Fenofibrate; For the treatment of hyperlipidemia, dyslipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia; LifeCycle Pharma; Approved August 2007 * Somatuline Depot (lanreotide acetate); For the treatment of acromegaly; Beaufour Ipsen; Approved August 2007[*] * Supprelin LA (histrelin acetate); For the treatment of central precocious puberty; Indevis Pharms; Approved May 2007 Gastroenterology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Hematology * Soliris (eculizumab); For the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria; Alexion Pharm; Approved March 2007 Immunology/Infectious Diseases * Altabax (retapamulin); For the treatment of impetigo due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes; Glaxo; Approved April 2007 * AzaSite (azithromycin); For the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis; InSite Vision; Approved April 2007 * Extina (ketoconazole); For the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis; Stiefel; Approved June 2007 * Selzentry (maraviroc); For the treatment of CCR5-tropic HIV-1; Pfizer; Approved August 2007 * Veramyst (fluticasone furoate); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis; GlaxoSmithKline; Approved April 2007 * Xyzal (levocetirizine dihydrochloride); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and urticaria; UCB Inc.; Approved May 2007 Musculoskeletal * Evista (raloxifene hydrochloride); For the treatment/prevention of osteoporosis and reduction of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women; Eli Lilly; Approved September 2007[*] * Reclast (zoledronic acid); For the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; Novartis; Approved August 2007 * Reclast (zoledronic acid); For the treatment of Paget's disease; Novartis Pharms; Approved April 2007 * Somatuline Depot (lanreotide acetate); For the treatment of acromegaly; Beaufour Ipsen; Approved August 2007[*] Nephrology/Urology * Torisel (temsirolimus); For the treatment of renal cell carcinoma; Wyeth Pharms; Approved May 2007 Neurology * Exelon (rivastigmine tartrate); For the treatment of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease-related dementia; Novartis Pharms; Approved July 2007 * Neupro (rotigotine); For the treatment of Parkinson's disease; Schwarz; Approved May 2007 * Nuvigil (armodafinil); For the treatment of excessive sleepiness; Cephalon; Approved June 2007 * Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate); For the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; New River; Approved February 2007 Obstetrics/Gynecology * Evamist (estradiol); For the treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause; Vivus; Approved July 2007 * Evista (raloxifene hydrochloride); For the treatment/prevention of osteoporosis and reduction of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women; Eli Lilly; Approved September 2007[*] * Reclast (zoledronic acid); For the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; Novartis; Approved August 2007 Oncology * Evista (raloxifene hydrochloride); For the treatment/prevention of osteoporosis and reduction of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women; Eli Lilly; Approved September 2007[*] * Torisel (temsirolimus); For the treatment of renal cell carcinoma; Wyeth Pharms; Approved May 2007 * Tykerb (lapatinib); For the treatment of breast cancer; GlaxoSmithKline; Approved March 2007 Ophthalmology * AzaSite (azithromycin); For the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis; InSite Vision; Approved April 2007 Otolaryngology * Veramyst (fluticasone furoate); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis; GlaxoSmithKline; Approved April 2007 * Xyzal (levocetirizine dihydrochloride); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and urticaria; UCB Inc.; Approved May 2007 Pediatrics/Neonatology * Altabax (retapamulin); For the treatment of impetigo due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes; Glaxo; Approved April 2007 * Supprelin LA (histrelin acetate); For the treatment of central precocious puberty; Indevis Pharms; Approved May 2007 * Veramyst (fluticasone furoate); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis; GlaxoSmithKline; Approved April 2007 * Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate); For the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; New River; Approved February 2007 * Xyzal (levocetirizine dihydrochloride); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and urticaria; UCB Inc.; Approved May 2007 * Zingo (lidocaine hydrochloride monohydrate); For local analgesia prior to venipuncture or peripheral intravenous cannulation, in children 3 to 18 years of age; Anesiva; Approved August 2007 Pharmacology/Toxicology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Psychiatry/Psychology * Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate); For the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; New River; Approved February 2007 Pulmonary/Respiratory Diseases * Letairis (ambrisentan); For the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension; Gilead; Approved June 2007 * Xyzal (levocetirizine dihydrochloride); For the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and urticaria; UCB Inc.; Approved May 2007 Rheumatology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Trauma/Emergency Medicine No approvals recorded to date in this area. 2006 Cardiology/Vascular Diseases * Ranexa (ranolazine); For the treatment of chronic angina in patients failing first-line therapy; CV Therapeutics; Approved January 2006 Dental/Maxillofacial Surgery No approvals recorded to date in this area. Dermatology/Plastic Surgery * Desonate (desonide); For the treatment of atopic dermatitis; Dow Pharm; Approved October 2006 * Verdeso (desonide); For the treatment of atopic dermatitis; Connetics; Approved September 2006 Endocrinology * Elestrin (estradiol gel); For the treatment of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause; BioSante; Approved December 2006 * Januvia(sitagliptin phosphate); For the treatment of type II diabetes; Merck; Approved October 2006 Gastroenterology * Amitiza (lubiprostone); For the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation; Sucampo/Takeda; Approved January 2006 Hematology * Dacogen (decitabine); For the treatment of both treatment-na�ve and -experienced Myelodysplastic Syndromes; MGI Pharma; Approved May 2006 Immunology/Infectious Diseases * Eraxis (anidulafungin); For the treatment of Candida fungal infections; Pfizer; Approved February 2006 * Gardasil (quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine); For the prevention of cervical cancer associated with human papillomavirus; Merck; Approved June 2006 * Noxafil (posaconazole); For the treatment of fungal infections; Schering; Approved in September 2006 * Prezista (darunavir); For the treatment of treatment-resistant HIV infections; Tibotec; Approved June 2006 * Rotateq (rotavirus vaccine, live oral pentavalent); For the prevention of gastroenteritis associated with rotavirus infections in infants; Merck; Approved February 2006 * Tyzeka (telbivudine); For the treatment of hepatitis B virus; Idenix Pharma; Approved October 2006 * Veregen (kunecatechins); For the treatment of external genital and perianal warts; Medigene; Approved October 2006 Musculoskeletal No approvals recorded to date in this area. Nephrology/Urology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Neurology * Invega (paliperidone); For the treatment of schizophrenia; Janssen LP; Approved December 2006 Obstetrics/Gynecology * Elestrin (estradiol gel); For the treatment of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause; BioSante; Approved December 2006 Oncology * Gardasil (quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine); For the prevention of cervical cancer associated with human papillomavirus; Merck; Approved June 2006 * Sprycel (dasatinib); For the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukemia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Approved June 2006 * Sutent (sunitinib); For the treatment of kidney cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors; Pfizer; Approved January 2006 * Vectibix (panitumumab); For the treatment of colorectal cancer; Amgen; Approved September 2006 Ophthalmology * Lucentis (ranibizumab); For the treatment of neovascular (wet) age related macular degeneration; Genentech; Approved June 2006 Otolaryngology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Pediatrics/Neonatology * Desonate (desonide); For the treatment of atopic dermatitis; Dow Pharm; Approved October 2006 * Elaprase (idursulfase); For the treatmenr of mucopolysaccharidosis II (Hunter Syndrome); Shire Pharmaceuticals; Approved July 2006 * Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa); For the treatment of Pompe disease (glycogen storage disease type II); Genzyme; Approved April 2006 Pharmacology/Toxicology No approvals recorded to date in this area. Psychiatry/Psychology * Chantix (varenicline); For the treatment of nicotine addiction; Pfizer; Approved May 2006 * Invega (paliperidone); For the treatment of schizophrenia; Janssen LP; Approved December 2006 Pulmonary/Respiratory Diseases * Brovana (arformoterol tartrate); For the treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Sepracor; Approved in October 2006 Rheumatology * Elaprase (idursulfase); For the treatmenr of mucopolysaccharidosis II (Hunter Syndrome); Shire Pharmaceuticals; Approved July 2006 Trauma/Emergency Medicine No approvals recorded to date in this area. " http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/druglist.html Scroll through the list of approved drugs for each of the last 10 years and let me know how well it validates your thesis that the market has hopelessly compromised the process of drug discovery to favor "lifestyle" drugs to the detriment of those suffering from more grave afflictions. I'd be willing to bet that you understand even less about what drives medical innovation in general, and drug discovery in particular - than you do about economics, which is quite something.

The perils of fluoridation, for starters...

No worse than Whistler on a powder day...... and unlike Whistler 99% of the Euro hordes will stick to the pistes leaving everything else for you. I've got the lime-green one-piece with the neon accents ready to go, but unfortunately lack in-laws with the condo hookup in Euroland. The powder decimation at Whistler/Blackcomb is a marvel of efficiency. Quite the wonder to behold, as is the gang-huck ripcord depth-charge scene that occurs to the left of harmony chair after a fresh dump. Combine that with the one-pieces and you'd really have something. LAECvnufApA

South Platte?

It does matter quite a bit actually, since medical technologies and pharmaceuticals that were once exotic, extremely costly, and rare become far less so over time if they are effective and offer sufficient advantages over the alternatives that pre-dated them. Destroy the mechanisms responsible for bringing new medical technologies and pharmaceuticals to market and you eliminate not only the costly treatments available to the few in the near-term, but more importantly, to everyone else in the long-term.

Second the rec on "The Games Climbers Play," especially good if you are in a situation where you have to break your reading up a bit. If you can get your hands on any of the various editions of "Ascent," that's another worthwhile compilation. Non-climbing: "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," if you've got the endurance. The Atheist Troika of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins..."The End of Faith, "God is Not Great," or "The God Delusion," if you're into thinking about these things. Going back a ways, "Rameau's Nephew/D'Alembert's Dream" by Diderot or "Letters on the English" by Voltaire were especially enjoyable, but everything that I read from the major figures of the Enlightenment was enjoyable, with the exception perhaps of Rousseau.

Worth asking if the treatments that bankrupted them would have ever come into existence in an economy governed by the incentives determined by the rules governing a single payer scheme.

Weekend Whistler lifts are worse than anything I encountered in yurp except the Grand Montets on a powder morning. The one piece of consistant praise I heard for N. America was for the snow. A brit I know who seasoned in Whistler 04-05 after several years in france couldn't understand why everyone was complaining about the lack of snow that year, it was more than he'd ever seen in France For lift served slackcountry or partially lift served slackcountry europe > north america imo. there are many places of whistler caliber and others far better. The ability to pop into a hut pretty much everywhere makes for different, more accessible, multi-day winter touring. The other big change is the difference in the ski scene - skiing and even skitouring are family activities not constrained to singles and dinks 20-40 I like to travel to other countries. A weak dollar sucks It wasn't the size of the lines that they were talking about, it was the rugby-scrum-with-skis deal that came up again and again. Might be an exaggeration, but not worth flying across the Atlantic to investigate if Whistler, Crystal, and Baker are nearby IMO.

Ditto for the dollar. I think that the language used to describe relative changes in the value of currencies ("Strong" vs "Weak") actually has an inordinate effect on how people perceive these changes.

A retail study for the village done in '05 stated: curious to see how they define "regional" I still think Whistler at $83 is a POS ripoff compared to Chamonix or St Anton at $55, much less Stubai at $40 even in "lame" seasons. The cost of staying in those communities is similar to Whistler as well. Strange that so many Brits and Euros spring for the extra-airfare and endure the extra flying time to come to Whistler instead of skiing in Euroland. One factor that pretty much every Euro/Brit that I've chatted with on the lifts cites (in addition to the scenery, snowpack, terrain, etc) the orderliness of the lift lines, and the relative lack thereof as key attractions of Whistler/North America vs Euroland. What has your experience been? If you live in the PNW, there's really no reason to travel anywhere else to ski IMO. There may be other places that have a better combination of vert, snowpack, and terrain inbounds, BC stuff that's just as good, and a season that's just as long...but I can't see any marginal gain in any of these warranting a flight. If you live in the East, however, it's worth donating plasma if that's what it takes to escape.

Is available and costs money. Your point is? Ditto for lottery tickets, cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, flat-screen TV's, chrome rims, etc - but people find a way to buy them. If a hypothetical family could afford health insurance, and disability insurance by selling their home and moving into more modest lodgings, then they *can* afford both - but choose not to. Sorry - but there's no right to a house, a car, cable, etc - and unless someone has stripped every non-essential expenditure out of their lifestyle before claiming that they can't afford coverage, then their lack of coverage is a consequence of their choices, not of circumstances beyond their control.

During our trip last year we used the two-for-one coupons that you got from filling up at Shell stations in Washington to get tickets for half of the stated price. Not sure how the economics of that work out, or how much of their visitation is from international visitors who pay so much in lodging/airfare/food that the price of lift tickets inconsequential. Seems like most destination resorts offer some kind of a deal to folks within driving range of the lifts to keep them from revolting, while getting every penny they can out of the folks who have to fly there. I still think that $82 for a day at Whistler is a bargain compared to prices in $65-$80 a-day range for POS eastern resorts.

A serious injury or chronic condition can easily cost, post insurance payment, 10-20% of your pretax income for a moderate earner not counting loss of wages Sure people could buy some crap catastrophic plan that won't cover much if/when you get injured, which is when healthcare gets really expensive. Disability insurance....

It'd be interesting to see how, under current arrangements, this development will impact Canada overall. Pros: cheaper imports the USA (whether imported by consumers themselves or the various wholesalers, etc that do so on their behalf)and less expensive travel in the USA. Cons: exports become proportionately less competitive in the US market, traveling/shopping in Canada become less affordable/attractive to Americans. Two sides to the coin, but I'm not sure that rapid increases in the exhange rate are a net-positive for Canada.

My main point was to counter FW's assertion that no one wants universal coverage. Certainly some of the 25 million people w/o health care are doing this by choice, but it's fair to say that a good amount of them have no health coverage because it is too expensive. Yes, you can get a cheap policy that covers a major accident, with a major deductable, but that does nothing for any type of preventive, wellness care like taking your kid in for odds and ends. The current private sector model is not working. Given the evidence of how Medicare and the VA can provide a more efficient delivery system compared to the privately run, profit and advertisement driven model, and with ample success stories in all other industralized countries, I have faith that we could work out a good single payer system. So far the only argument against such a system I've heard is that people just don't trust the government to run it well. Given the track record of the private insurers I say it's time to give it a try. How do you explain the fact that the premiums for health insurance - and thus affordability - vary dramatically from one state to the next? Does the price of MRI's and scalpel's vary dramatically from one state to the next, or might the manner in which the health-insurance market is regulated have an impact? It's also worth making the point that "affordable" means different things to different people. How many people who claim that they can't afford health insurance have cable TV, elected to purchase homes instead of renting more modest dwellings, eat out instead of preparing their own meals, own multiple cars, etc? If affordability is the primary problem, there are models other than nationalizing the entire sector of the economy. Is the primary goal here transferring control of a massive sector of the economy to the government, or to improve affordability? Seems like the former to me.

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms. Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed. How would being forced to pay for a good from a private company - in a system where aside from satisfying certain minimum coverage requirements - you are free to choose from catastrophic versus comprehensive coverage, you are fee to choose from policies offered by all participants in a competitive health-insurance market, etc...worse than being forced to pay into a unitary system run by the government where you have none of these things? Would you rather buy your car insurance from a government run monopoly, instead of participating in the current system, where the government mandates coverage and certain minimums but otherwise allows insurers to compete for your business and for you to choose who you want to buy your insurance from? If we were discussing private monopolies versus public monopolies I might agree with you, but none of the compulsory insurance models that I'm aware of include the establishment of private monopolies in their plans.

Jim: I presume that when Tim Eyman's referendums secure passage, you raise a glass to to him, and delight in the prospect of legislative solutions to problems requiring the consideration and resolution of an incredibly complex series of conflicting perogatives - by a simple majority of the citizens, whether or not they have any expertise on the matter. "WOULD YOU RATHER PAY A FLAT $30 FEE FOR CAR TABS OR PAY MUCH HIGHER FEES?" Aside from the "wisdom of the crowds" angle at play here, there's also the matter of whether the respondents would respond with equal enthusiasm if the question were phrased differently, and whether enthusiasm for universal health care is synonymous with a model in which all health care is paid for and administered by the government.

I don't think there is a "crisis". Obviously there are problems - and they are getting worse. But 'crisis'? Politicians love to "manufacture" crises when they don't exist. I don't trust government programs and their costs. I want to understand exactly why we are doing something, what the "solution"'s goals are, how much it will cost and be convinced that the quality of care will not go down. And I want the people who institute these programs to be accountable with adequate oversight. If the program fails it should be scrapped. With government that rarely happens. I've already proposed a palatable solution for me. Let people opt in to a gov't sponsored program and see how it flies. Every card-carrying Dem can sign up, along with the 43 million uninsured. According to Jim's arguments it would be more efficient than private health care, eliminating the "middle man", and address issues like denial of coverage. My suspicions as to why people don't support this idea is that they know damn well that the program will fail to be any better than private care and will cost more. What they want is to nationalize health care first, ask questions later, and just shrug off any failures by either denying that they ever said the plan would be cheaper and better or blaming failures on "the other side" or "lack of adequate funding". One component of this debate that's often left out the fact that medicare/medicaid often make payments that are less than the total cost of the procedure being covered - and hospitals, doctors, etc cover the difference elsewhere - which results in proportionately higher insurance premiums and medical bills for those outside of these systems. This will not be possible under a single payer system, in which the payer will have to either pay the full costs of the procedures, or attempt to impose price controls. Since price is a function of supply and demand, which is influenced by factors that can neither be controlled nor forseen by whatever centralized administrative mechanism has been installed to replace the price mechanism - the odds are 1:1 that the nominal price set by the government will diverge from the real price of whatever health-care good is being purchased - which will result in overpayment for, and a surplus of, those health care goods for which the nominal price is higher than the real price. The probability of the converse occurring, where the nominal price set by the government is less than the true price of the health-care good, and those in the business of providing those goods will decline to produce goods at a loss, and the end result will be a shortage of those goods relative to demand, and this shortage will persist until the nominal price increases to the level required to bring additional supply forward. When you attempt to supplant the real price with a nominal price - these outcomes are inevitable.

Swiss Model: The Swiss healthcare system is a combination of public, subsidised private and totally private systems: * public: e. g. the University of Geneva Hospital (HUG) with 2,350 beds, 8,300 staff and 50,000 patients per year; * subsidised private: the home care services to which one may have recourse in case of a difficult pregnancy, after childbirth, illness, accident, handicap or old age; * totally private: doctors in private practice and in private clinics. The insured person has full freedom of choice among the recognised healthcare providers competent to treat their condition (in his region) on the understanding that the costs are covered by the insurance up to the level of the official tariff. There is freedom of choice when selecting an insurance company (provided it is an officially registered caisse-maladie or a private insurance company authorised by the Federal Act) to which one pays a premium, usually on a monthly basis. The list of officially-approved insurance companies can be obtained from the cantonal authority.