[Oe List ...] Projections

[LAURELCG at aol.com]

In my humble opinion, as helpful as this discussion has been, trying to  
re-form health care will be irrelevant in the not-too-distant future.  I just 
listened to part of NPR's Science Friday show on nanotechnology. The  
applications in medicine are mind-blowing. (_www.npr.org/sciencefriday_ 
(http://www.npr.org/sciencefriday) , I  think) quantum physics, once applied, is going 
to change everything.  My intuition is that it is going to happen very 
quickly.
 
The challenge will be to keep the research and the good it can do from  
being just for the elite who can afford to pay huge profits for those who  
develop it.
 
The end of October I'm going to a seminar in San Francisco to be  taught by 
Richard Bartlett. He is a former chiropractor and naturopathic doctor  
whose book, Matrix Energetics reads like science fiction. Go to the  website 
_www.matrixenergetics.com_ (http://www.matrixenergetics.com)   and watch some 
of the videos if you're interested. Anyone who has studied energy  healing or 
shamanic studies will find it fascinating.
 
In the house of All That are many mansions beyond what we have even  
dreamed.
 
And it is literally true that the Future is Open and All is Possible.
 
Jann 
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/3/2009 5:30:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
geowanda at earthlink.net writes:

There  has been the same arguments about Social Security being 
unsustainable in the  U.S. for many years, and if my memory serves me there were 
disastrous  projections about medicare, which added to the defeat of the Clinton's 
plan.  I believe predictions are mostly used for political purposes, pro and 
 con.  I just don't know what we're finally getting at with our way of  
predicting the future.  Not only is our health care costs unsustainable,  so is 
our water usage, ground and air pollution, rate of poverty and education  
system.  If these issues aren't addressed and the global economy doesn't  
find new legs, I imagine all bets are off whether you live in Canada, the U.S.  
or anywhere else.  The thing I like most about Canada is that it is both  
local and national and it covers everyone.  I believe if we had some kind  of 
system like that in the U.S. we would find what we're spending on "health  
care" would be a lot less and we'd have much better coverage.  No one so  
far has commented on the costs for covering very poorly the poor, if you can  
call that health care.  Not only do hospitals have to find money for  
services for those with no insurance (and that care is not always what you  might 
think) and it is charged to us -governments, charities, churches, etc.  It 
is finally terribly expensive when you add in the delay of treatment,  the 
police, courts, jails, social services, burglaries, assaults that are  
directly associated with the illnesses of people without insurance, as well as  the 
bankruptcies of the middle class.  I haven't seen any figures on this  yet, 
nor have I seen figures that everyone agrees on for any of this.  At  
bottom, I believe that this issue like a number of others at the moment, is  this 
nation deciding whether we become a people who just care for ourselves or  
we care for all.  My memory is we decide what is necessary and then we  
figure out the costs and how to raise the money.  



 
 
 
George Holcombe
14900 Yellowleaf Tr.
Austin, TX 78728
Home: 512/252-2756
Mobile 512/294-5952
_geowanda at earthlink.net_ (mailto:geowanda at earthlink.net) 





On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Jack Gilles wrote:


George,   


The trends you speak about may be true.  But the trend upward of  health 
costs versus projected income (if there isn't a change in services,  taxes or 
cost reductions) is pretty clear.  Health costs are going up  everywhere, 
some at a sustainable basis and some not.  Clearly in the  US it is not 
sustainable and I was asking if that is true for Canada?  I don't know, but some 
have said it is.  So I wouldn't dismiss  the question simply because it 
contains a projection.  We need facts  and data, not opinions.  So unless there 
is a counter trend of  'wellness" on its way, which there well may be, then 
we need to look at the  consequences of a continued rise.  It's 1/6 of the US 
economy now and  projections (sorry about that word) say it's headed for 
50% in our lifetime.  If true, what do we do?


Jack

On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:21 PM, George Holcombe wrote:


How  many of our projections, government, scientific institutions,  
universities, think tanks, etc. have been accurate?  I remember in  the 70's 
projections of little oil by the 90's, full employment in the  90's, great 
reductions in poverty, etc.  None of these have been  close.  I've consulted for a 
few companies that hired folks, who  produced very rosy projections based on 
"the data."  A couple of them  are no longer in being.    I recall one of 
the church  consultants who projected that the inner city churches I worked 
with in  the 80's would be closed in 5 years, by the data.  They are all 
still  going.  What is the role of projections?  


 
George Holcombe
14900 Yellowleaf  Tr.















 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090904/fefb5d66/attachment-0001.html>