I find it hard to consider lawsuits a miniscule part of the problem, have a look at the following link if you disagree. http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

I would like to highlight the following part in particular.

I don't know the details about the Texas case in particular, but the very article that gave these numbers mentions Texas and some of the benefits that occurred from the legislative changes. There are other explanations why it wouldn't make a dent in the rate of inflation other than the overall cost being miniscule. It's possible Texas had another area of cost that grew faster than other states and countered the effect. It's also possible that despite the change, doctors didn't change their practice of defensive medicine. Perhaps out of habit, lack of knowledge of the changes, or the changes being too small. I don't know enough to say.

Your criticism of the fraud claim is much more deserved. The examples I gave were small and tended to focus only on the side of the little guy when fraud can also include things such as doctors, hospitals, and the like making fraudulent charges against insurance. I'm sure there are countless ways fraud occurs I haven't even thought of, much less mentioned. Overall though, the matter is far from a joke. The NPR estimated the cost of fraud in the US system at $60 billion to $600 billion a year. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/cost-medical-fraud-could-pay-health-care-reform

Yes, this is one of the arguments I like to use when someone is pushing single payer or public health. Just imagine you get the system exactly how you want it. Now the political winds shift as they always do. You don't even have to get too crazy. Just imagine the President/congress combination you've lived through that you hated the most. Now imagine what would happen if they were put in charge of your system.

Even if the system has become so popular it'd be political suicide to roll major parts of it back, they can still choose exactly what's covered and to what extent. Who is denied coverage for this or that procedure on moral or financial grounds. Since they're the only game in town, now you have very few options. That's why I want to keep my options open rather than giving control to government.

America is not Britain, France, Canada, Germany, or any other country. America has it's own citizens with their own culture and their own viewpoints. The fact that we haven't implemented any of the systems these other countries have is proof enough of that. Do you think it won't take years to get public healthcare pushed through? Or even a single payer system? America has too many people that fear big government electing too many politicians who share that view to replicate the system of any of these countries quickly.

While I'll readily admit that some government control and regulation is necessary to fix the system, and described some I would support above, there are no shortage of people who won't make that admission. The less obvious government involvement there is in a proposed system, the more likely you are to be able to get it passed and have it survive legal challenges. It's not a question of coming up with the perfect system, or even the best system. It's a matter of tailoring a system for the US that's the best possible pill the country can actually swallow.

I'm normally a very staunch conservative, but healthcare is one of my most liberal viewpoints. Even so, public healthcare isn't necessary to fix the US system. Nor is it a solution by itself. Unless we fix the other major issues, it won't solve the insanely cost inefficient US system. Profits and executive salaries make for a very small fraction of health care cost. (I believe less than 5% combined, although I'd have to research the exact numbers again to confirm.) There are some big issues that need to be addressed however to reign in cost. All three of the following individually add more to costs than the evil profits and executive salaries combined.

1. Wasted administrative costs - Centralize and standardize records, billing, procedure codes, pretty much everything you can. The process should be the same regardless of who your insurance is so less staff and training needed to handle all the different procedures.

2. Lawsuits - The cost of this is twofold and huge. First there's the actual insurance costs, which for high risk practices like neurosurgery can be astronomical. Second is the overly defensive medicine practiced. Doctors will perform more expensive tests and scans even though they know there's no need for them just so that if something does come up down the road, they've covered their rears. Mistakes happen. Caps should be put on the size of payouts against doctors and they should only have any payout if gross negligence can be proven.

3. Fraud - Whether it's homeless people calling 911 for free room and board for night and taking an ambulance to save on cab fair, or those leaving phony names and addresses with the emergency room to skip out on the bill, fraud adds significantly to cost. It can take up bed/staff/ambulance resources that can be needed in real emergencies as well. If we could properly deal with the homeless problem, it would solve part of the issue, and universal healthcare would solve more. No need to skip the bill if you're not paying. Still, we do need to go after and prosecute serial abusers of the system.

Now, if you solve all the issues above, I think you'll find the cost efficiency of the US system will come more in line with other countries. Then you can solve the other gaping problems without bankrupting the nation. Obviously universal healthcare, but you don't need to make it public or single payer. First regulate standard coverage that [b]must[/b] be covered by all insurance providers. Then require everyone to purchase health insurance (the government subsidizes the cost for those of low income.) There's no denial for preexisting conditions, and no dropping people or refusing to pay the mandated coverage.

Now, insurance companies can only compete it cost and value added services, such as covering no mandatory procedures like certain cosmetic surgeries or the like. You can even have nonprofit insurance organizes like co-ops compete with banks if people are really afraid of the cost of profits.

 

That's very true, but we're a long way from that sort of market penetration at the moment. Nor is it likely to help me the next time I go car shopping. Despite paying for pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, and other such features I never use, I find it doubtful I'll convince the other members of the association to hook up plugs for electric cars in the parking lots anytime soon.

Well, if I was wrong, at least I already apologized for it in my first post and all my yous after the first paragraph were universal yous anyway. As I said, I mostly wanted to rant. Anyway, I won't go in to much detail, because others have already done so in reply to you. But I will summarize that, while the source your electricity may vary by region, electric cars are at least, on average, significantly greener than gasoline cars. They also have the potential to become even greener as, presumably, more renewable power sources are going to be added to the grid.

Forgive me if I'm being a bit presumptuous about your own beliefs, however, I feel the need to rant a bit here. I am simply sick and tired of people seemingly determined to attack or attempt to discredit anything related to green policies. I find it ridiculous that so many climate skeptics want to turn it into an 'us versus them' game where you have to tear down everything the other side supports.

I'm a climate skeptic myself. I'm skeptical that man has as much to do with climate change as many seem to believe they do. I'm skeptical of their models for the future. I'm skeptical that climate change will be as damaging to the world as they predict if it does continue unabated. I'm skeptical that policies such as carbon taxes will have a significant impact on preventing climate change even if all their models are right, much less enough to outweigh their economic cost.

Even with all of that said, you seem to be putting down the buying of electric cards. Okay you could go after the tax credit, but that's not the fault of the person buying it. No matter what happens to be true regarding climate change, it's hard to argue against reduced pollution and less dependence on foreign oil. If the market can support electric cars, then that's great!

Just because you're a skeptic, and against government intervention on the climate change front, doesn't mean you can't support a green personal lifestyle and try to promote such behavior in others. If anything, you should be more inclined to do so. That way, at least you'll have something to assuage your guilt over being obstructionist with climate policies in the case it turns out you were dead wrong.

Don't forget that electricity isn't free. I think you'd be hard pressed to end up in the black as far as simple dollars went even if it's only $10k less. Still, it's nearing the price point where I'd be interested if it weren't for one critical point. I live in a condo and park in the parking lot outside. There's simply no place for me to plug it in there. For the many people who live in apartments/condos, this is a deal breaker.

It can become a bit of a catch 22 as well. The apartment owner/association isn't going to pay to wire up the parking lots unless there's a lot of demand for it from those living there. There won't be demand for it from those living there unless a lot of them own electric cars. And very few people are going to buy an electric car if they can't plug it in overnight.

Sadly, even skimming the article I didn't see any data by manufacturer of android devices or, even better, by individual model. That information would have been quite useful.

If they want new revenue, they should offer a service where you can pay to not receive any mail that isn't addressed to people living at the address. I can guarantee you I'd pay more to never have flyers, local news, and coupon booklets stuffed into my mailbox addressed to 'Current Resident' than they'd be losing in my share of the revenue. It'd be better for the environment too with less wasted paper.

I don't have any statistical data, but I find it unlikely that most people go their entire lives without losing anything. Unless I'm just the extreme outlier who has had tons of bad experiences with USPS. It's hard to verify exactly what is lost, but between mail that never showed up that people swore they sent, mail people tell me they never received that I know I sent, and neighbors mail that I've received, I estimate I'm up to around 20 something lost.

I've also more than once had mail that had clearly been opened and looked through. I've twice had mail show up more than a month after the postmark date (hey at least they found those pieces that they lost.) Nor is this just one bad mail carrier. I've had these experiences spread across 6 different addresses, in five different cities and two different states. Every one of those six addresses had problems.

I follow the policy of not sending anything by USPS that I can't afford to lose. If it's important, I stick it in a box and send it UPS. It's more expensive, but I've never had a single problem with them. That's why I would be thrilled to see private competition for letter delivery, was the final nail in the coffin of the post office as we know it.

'Will not' might be a bit strong. Unless there's a significant change to plan costs, I think it's all but inevitable that texting will die out. Wireless data dead zones are only going to become rarer. In addition, some people are in areas that already have rock solid data access. Plus, most people don't like spending more money for something than they have to. Once enough people figure out they can use email like text messages, many are going to want to cancel their text plans.

And even if some people resist, if their friends start telling them to stop texting them because it costs them money, or even figure out how to block them completely, they may be forced to adapt. I'm not saying texting will die in 2012, just that we may very well start to see it go into decline in the years to come.

I do wonder how much longer it will bear texting. Now that larger and larger percentages of the cell phone market have smartphones, why pay for a separate text plan when email can do everything texting can better? I get a sound on my phone whenever I receive an email just like a text. I also can view and search all my emails from the gmail client and enjoy the use of a keyboard for replies whenever I'm at a computer (which is a rather significant percent of the time.) All this, and it doesn't cost a cent more than the data plan I have anyway.

Of course I've never had a texting plan to begin with. Too much cost for too little benefit. I'm sure I'm not alone here in being in front of my computer the vast majority of the time. For the few times I couldn't be reached via email, a phone call was still possible. The hardest part was teaching friends/family that if they text me, I'm not going to get it, because I do have text messages blocked.

You know what violent protesting accomplishes? A lot of publicity yes, but negative publicity. There's hardly a faster way to alienate potential supporters than acts of violence. I know I'm far less interested in helping their cause than I was prior to the riots in London. Now I'm rooting for them to find the people responsible for the riots and throw the law at them to hopefully discourage such acts in the future.

I've never had a land line. The only reason I can see to keep them is wanting to hang on to a number everyone knows. Even then it's probably worth biting the bullet and getting rid of it. If you have a family and want a shared line that's always on, it's probably cheaper to add another number to your cell phone plan and just have a cell phone that stays at home 24/7.