Lacing

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

Hi All,

I'm sitting (lying actually) here recovering from an operation on my
legs for extensive varicose veins, dreaming about what a powerful
rider I will be come spring with my new improved circulatory system.

So powerful that I am concerned about some wheels I built up a few
months ago. OK, forget all the BS about extra power, but I think I may
have made a mistake in how I laced the wheels.

They are 28 hole using American Classic hubs and lightweight rims. I
ordered all the parts before I had ever seen the hubs, so I didn't
realize how little dish these hubs use due to a very narrow flange
spacing. I laced the wheels 2x DS and radial NDS based on things I'd
read about dished wheels. But since the wheels do not have much dish
at all, I wonder if it would be better for me to relace the NDS 2x
too.

I tested these wheels quite harshly when I built them by sprinting up
steep hills throwing the bike back and forth, etc. They didn't break,
but they did feel like they flexed sometimes. I don't know if this was
a sign of a problem with the lacing, or something unavoidable given
the thrashing I gave them. Even my 3x 36h Velocity Aerohead OC wheels
will flex if I stomp them enough.

So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
Classic hubs?

Joseph

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<48b89605-09fd-44d6-9bfd-d847fb60625d@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm sitting (lying actually) here recovering from an operation on my
> legs for extensive varicose veins, dreaming about what a powerful
> rider I will be come spring with my new improved circulatory system.

Sorry to hear about this and I hope you recover quickly.

> So powerful that I am concerned about some wheels I built up a few
> months ago. OK, forget all the BS about extra power, but I think I
> may have made a mistake in how I laced the wheels.
>
> They are 28 hole using American Classic hubs and lightweight rims. I
> ordered all the parts before I had ever seen the hubs, so I didn't
> realize how little dish these hubs use due to a very narrow flange
> spacing. I laced the wheels 2x DS and radial NDS based on things I'd
> read about dished wheels. But since the wheels do not have much dish
> at all, I wonder if it would be better for me to relace the NDS 2x
> too.
>
> I tested these wheels quite harshly when I built them by sprinting up
> steep hills throwing the bike back and forth, etc. They didn't break,
> but they did feel like they flexed sometimes. I don't know if this
> was a sign of a problem with the lacing, or something unavoidable
> given the thrashing I gave them. Even my 3x 36h Velocity Aerohead OC
> wheels will flex if I stomp them enough.
>
> So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> Classic hubs?

I don't know about that, but I had an American Classic front hub flange
fail with radial spoking. Three spoke heads ripped out of the flange.
With the radial being on the non-drive side, in your case, the spoke
tension is likely to be lower- but still.

AC uses really narrow flange spacing on their rear hubs, presumably in
an attempt to raise the tension on the left side spokes. I think it
reduces the bracing angle and makes the wheel more laterally flexible.
Bike wheels see relatively little lateral force in normal riding,
though. In any event, if they were my wheels I'd respoke them. I'm
pretty conservative about this stuff and I'd respoke to 3x on both
sides. But then I'm 210 pounds and as a result think conservatively
about bike components in general, preferring to err on the side of
caution.

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> Classic hubs?

Not at all... the best way to lace them is radial with heads in so
that you get the best possible bracing angle. Another option is 1x
heads in.

BTW, I've had extensive vericose veins for 20 years. I don't know that
it matters much, but I hope you have a good result from your surgery.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 23, 5:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <48b89605-09fd-44d6-9bfd-d847fb606...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > I'm sitting (lying actually) here recovering from an operation on my
> > legs for extensive varicose veins, dreaming about what a powerful
> > rider I will be come spring with my new improved circulatory system.
>
> Sorry to hear about this and I hope you recover quickly.

Thanks. I should have dealt with this years ago. It might even help my
riding!

> though. In any event, if they were my wheels I'd respoke them. I'm
> pretty conservative about this stuff and I'd respoke to 3x on both
> sides. But then I'm 210 pounds and as a result think conservatively
> about bike components in general, preferring to err on the side of
> caution.

210? Lightweight! ;-)

I probably will respoke 3x as you suggest. I'm not so worried about
long term durability so much as taco-ing.

Joseph

[daveornee]

Ron Ruff Wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> > Classic hubs?
>
> Not at all... the best way to lace them is radial with heads in so
> that you get the best possible bracing angle. Another option is 1x
> heads in.
>
> BTW, I've had extensive vericose veins for 20 years. I don't know that
> it matters much, but I hope you have a good result from your surgery.
I don't know why you would consider "radial with heads in" the best
possible bracing angle. I would agree that that way give the largest
bracing angle on that side, but I don't consider it the best because it
would mean the lowest tension on the left side (Non-Drive Side) spokes
in comparison to the drive side. That configuration means that the
spoke tension differetial would make the drive side spokes carry most of
the loads.
I tend to agree with Tim in thinking 3x would be good on both side
unless the flange diameter and rims involved makes the spokes overlap
the spoke heads and/or you go past tangential. If 3x leads to either or
both of the conditions I would switch to 2X of the Non-Drive Side. You
likely could judge what might happen from examining how things look now
on the Drive Side.


--
daveornee

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 24, 3:36 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> > Classic hubs?
>
> Not at all... the best way to lace them is radial with heads in so
> that you get the best possible bracing angle. Another option is 1x
> heads in.

They are heads in. So you think any deficiencies or flex from these
wheels is not a result of using radial NDS, but more likely from their
spindly components?

>
> BTW, I've had extensive vericose veins for 20 years. I don't know that
> it matters much, but I hope you have a good result from your surgery.

Mine made their appearance when I was 13, getting worse over the last
25 years. Serious pitting edema and chronic sores when still in your
30's is a bad thing! Some people have them for years with no serious
complications, but I suppose these is a threshold someplace that needs
to be crossed. They were nothing more than ugly for many years. My
father has had them for way longer than I yet he has no problems. The
surgeon estimated I had 400ml sloshing around in the one leg!

Joseph

[Brad Kliewer]

On Nov 23, 9:30 pm, daveornee <daveornee.30j...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know why you would consider "radial with heads in" the best
> possible bracing angle. I would agree that that way give the largest
> bracing angle on that side, but I don't consider it the best because it
> would mean the lowest tension on the left side (Non-Drive Side) spokes
> in comparison to the drive side. That configuration means that the
> spoke tension differetial would make the drive side spokes carry most of
> the loads.

It's interesting you should mention this, because it's something I've
been thinking about lately. It seems like every discussion on mixed
lacing (DS vs NDS) refers to a lower cross count on the NDS. But, if
the lateral tensions are balanced, you get higher tension on the NDS
by about 2.5% per increment (36 holes) by increasing the cross count
(assuming my calculations are correct). Is this not done because its
not practical to lace DS 3x with a NDS 4x (because of crowding near
the flange) or DS 2x with NDS 3x or 4x (because 2x isn't quite
tangential enough when applying torque)?

I've always had 3x on both sides and never had a problem, but I'm
fairly light. The only wheel I ever tacoed was a front wheel with
steel rims about 25 years ago while mounting the bike -- I'm guessing
that was probably a poorly built wheel (I don't recall any issues with
ride quality that would have pointed to the wheel going out of true
before hand).

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 23, 8:30 pm, daveornee <daveornee.30j...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> I don't know why you would consider "radial with heads in" the best
> possible bracing angle. I would agree that that way give the largest
> bracing angle on that side, but I don't consider it the best because it
> would mean the lowest tension on the left side (Non-Drive Side) spokes
> in comparison to the drive side. That configuration means that the
> spoke tension differetial would make the drive side spokes carry most of
> the loads.

Spoke tension differentials are a fact of life with the hubs and
frames we have these days... unless you do a triplet lacing and put
only half as many spokes on the NDS. But for the moment lets assume
that isn't an option. AC has decided that having tension reasonably
balanced on both sides is a good thing, so their NDS flange is at
~30mm. DS spacing is usually ~19mm with any "S" hub (non Campy). A DA
or White Industries hub is 36mm... and a Tune is 38mm. Why do they
choose to have such unbalanced tension? Because the lateral stiffness
goes up exponentially with the bracing angle. In fact the lateral
stiffness of the wheel goes up faster than the tension drops as you
move that flange over. The only issue with low tension on the NDS is
that if it gets too extreme the radial loads will make these go
slack... and that is a bad thing for sure. But having the flanges too
close together makes the wheel flexible and prone to collapse... pick
your poison. Basically I think that AC hubs are too narrow for an
optimum balance... DT also, though theirs are a little wider. So I
always lace these heads-in NDS. I usually lace WI hubs that way also,
with no issues. The only hubs I don't lace heads in are the Tunes.

> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They are heads in. So you think any deficiencies or flex from these
> wheels is not a result of using radial NDS, but more likely from their
> spindly components?

It's natural for a narrow spaced hub. At this point all you can do is
use stiffer spokes.

About the veins... this is supposed to be rare among men but I never
see women with veins like that. Maybe they just hide them? Seems like
I know a lot of bike riders that have them. I'll be interested to know
if it helps you. I guess getting rid of that "dead" fluid couldn't
hurt!

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 23, 11:29 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 3:36 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> > > Classic hubs?
>
> > Not at all... the best way to lace them is radial with heads in so
> > that you get the best possible bracing angle. Another option is 1x
> > heads in.
>
> They are heads in. So you think any deficiencies or flex from these
> wheels is not a result of using radial NDS, but more likely from their
> spindly components?
>
>
>
> > BTW, I've had extensive vericose veins for 20 years. I don't know that
> > it matters much, but I hope you have a good result from your surgery.
>
> Mine made their appearance when I was 13, getting worse over the last
> 25 years. Serious pitting edema and chronic sores when still in your
> 30's is a bad thing! Some people have them for years with no serious
> complications, but I suppose these is a threshold someplace that needs
> to be crossed. They were nothing more than ugly for many years. My
> father has had them for way longer than I yet he has no problems. The
> surgeon estimated I had 400ml sloshing around in the one leg!

You didn't get conventional stripping, did you? I thought they were
doing mostly foam and laser these days -- which has a real quick
recovery period (like a day). In fact, activity is part of recovery.
-- Jay Beattie.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 24, 9:18 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:30 pm, daveornee <daveornee.30j...@no-
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > I don't know why you would consider "radial with heads in" the best
> > possible bracing angle. I would agree that that way give the largest
> > bracing angle on that side, but I don't consider it the best because it
> > would mean the lowest tension on the left side (Non-Drive Side) spokes
> > in comparison to the drive side. That configuration means that the
> > spoke tension differetial would make the drive side spokes carry most of
> > the loads.
>
> Spoke tension differentials are a fact of life with the hubs and
> frames we have these days... unless you do a triplet lacing and put
> only half as many spokes on the NDS. But for the moment lets assume
> that isn't an option. AC has decided that having tension reasonably
> balanced on both sides is a good thing, so their NDS flange is at
> ~30mm. DS spacing is usually ~19mm with any "S" hub (non Campy). A DA
> or White Industries hub is 36mm... and a Tune is 38mm. Why do they
> choose to have such unbalanced tension? Because the lateral stiffness
> goes up exponentially with the bracing angle. In fact the lateral
> stiffness of the wheel goes up faster than the tension drops as you
> move that flange over. The only issue with low tension on the NDS is
> that if it gets too extreme the radial loads will make these go
> slack... and that is a bad thing for sure. But having the flanges too
> close together makes the wheel flexible and prone to collapse... pick
> your poison. Basically I think that AC hubs are too narrow for an
> optimum balance... DT also, though theirs are a little wider. So I
> always lace these heads-in NDS. I usually lace WI hubs that way also,
> with no issues. The only hubs I don't lace heads in are the Tunes.
>
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They are heads in. So you think any deficiencies or flex from these
> > wheels is not a result of using radial NDS, but more likely from their
> > spindly components?
>
> It's natural for a narrow spaced hub. At this point all you can do is
> use stiffer spokes.
>
> About the veins... this is supposed to be rare among men but I never
> see women with veins like that. Maybe they just hide them? Seems like
> I know a lot of bike riders that have them. I'll be interested to know
> if it helps you. I guess getting rid of that "dead" fluid couldn't
> hurt!

I think you are right that a lot of women hide them. I think also that
a lot of women who have them have enough fat to make them not so
visible. At the hospital getting ready, when I took off my support
stocking so the surgeon could plan the operation, he said, "Wow. Look
at that." and then he went off to get some other people to show them.
In preparation for the operation, I'd done 4+ hours on my rollers to
get the edema to abate. This made the definition of the veins quite
pronounced. He said that helped the surgery.

Losing all the excess blood and the fluid build up will make a
difference for sure. I'm also curious to see what effects if any there
are on lactate clearance rates with a functional circulation, instead
of the recycling of old blood that was going on before.

Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 24, 5:41 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:29 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 3:36 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 8:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So is the radial NDS a problem given the narrow dish of the American
> > > > Classic hubs?
>
> > > Not at all... the best way to lace them is radial with heads in so
> > > that you get the best possible bracing angle. Another option is 1x
> > > heads in.
>
> > They are heads in. So you think any deficiencies or flex from these
> > wheels is not a result of using radial NDS, but more likely from their
> > spindly components?
>
> > > BTW, I've had extensive vericose veins for 20 years. I don't know that
> > > it matters much, but I hope you have a good result from your surgery.
>
> > Mine made their appearance when I was 13, getting worse over the last
> > 25 years. Serious pitting edema and chronic sores when still in your
> > 30's is a bad thing! Some people have them for years with no serious
> > complications, but I suppose these is a threshold someplace that needs
> > to be crossed. They were nothing more than ugly for many years. My
> > father has had them for way longer than I yet he has no problems. The
> > surgeon estimated I had 400ml sloshing around in the one leg!
>
> You didn't get conventional stripping, did you? I thought they were
> doing mostly foam and laser these days -- which has a real quick
> recovery period (like a day). In fact, activity is part of recovery.
> -- Jay Beattie.

I'm afraid to answer. If it gets out I was on a waiting list for 2
years for a conventional stripping procedure this thread may turn into
a flame war about the ills of socialized medicine...

I had the procedure Wednsday, and I took a short (2km?) bike ride
today. It felt good. More tomorrow!

Joseph

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 24, 9:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid to answer. If it gets out I was on a waiting list for 2
> years for a conventional stripping procedure this thread may turn into
> a flame war about the ills of socialized medicine...

Well... I'd never get it done because I can't afford to pay for it.
Can't afford to get my teeth fixed either...

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 24, 7:05 pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 9:53 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm afraid to answer. If it gets out I was on a waiting list for 2
> > years for a conventional stripping procedure this thread may turn into
> > a flame war about the ills of socialized medicine...
>
> Well... I'd never get it done because I can't afford to pay for it.
> Can't afford to get my teeth fixed either...

$2500 per leg in a Beverly Hills top notch place without insurance.
I'd have done that if they hadn't kept stringing me along that I was
getting near the top of the list, and if I hadn't already paid WAY
more than that in taxes that fund this sort of thing.

Joseph

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:05:26 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
<rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I'm afraid to answer. If it gets out I was on a waiting list for 2
>> years for a conventional stripping procedure this thread may turn into
>> a flame war about the ills of socialized medicine...
>
>Well... I'd never get it done because I can't afford to pay for it.
>Can't afford to get my teeth fixed either...

I seem to remember that Joseph lives in Norway. Their system of
"socialised medicine" must be similar to that in the UK, which is the
only other country I know of where patients end up on such outrageous
waiting lists (some of them come here to France to get quicker
treatment).

In France, although the insurance system ensures that no one is
without cover, it is normally up to the patient to pay the medical
practitioner/hospital. The patient is then reimbursed by the Social
Security system, on presentation of receipts.

That the medical profession is paid promptly and with a minimum of
bureaucracy is probably one of the reasons why patients get treated
without delay. I understand that the process is similar in Germany
and Italy.

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 24, 11:25 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $2500 per leg in a Beverly Hills top notch place without insurance.
> I'd have done that if they hadn't kept stringing me along that I was
> getting near the top of the list, and if I hadn't already paid WAY
> more than that in taxes that fund this sort of thing.

Getting both legs done would have cost only a little less than my avg
yearly income for the last 16 years. I paid for catastrophic insurance
($10,000 deductable) for 14 years, but when the premiums went over
$2,000 per year, I quit. Never collected a cent on it either. BTW,
I've paid at least a couple hundred thousand in taxes from back in the
day when I made more money and taxes were higher.

There are plenty of debating points, but I'm sure that the US medical
system is broken.

[Tom Sherman]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:25 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $2500 per leg in a Beverly Hills top notch place without insurance.
>> I'd have done that if they hadn't kept stringing me along that I was
>> getting near the top of the list, and if I hadn't already paid WAY
>> more than that in taxes that fund this sort of thing.
>
> Getting both legs done would have cost only a little less than my avg
> yearly income for the last 16 years. I paid for catastrophic insurance
> ($10,000 deductable) for 14 years, but when the premiums went over
> $2,000 per year, I quit. Never collected a cent on it either. BTW,
> I've paid at least a couple hundred thousand in taxes from back in the
> day when I made more money and taxes were higher.
>
> There are plenty of debating points, but I'm sure that the US medical
> system is broken.

I believe the medical system in the U$A is functioning exactly as
intended. After all, profits are high.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 25, 5:04 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:25 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > $2500 per leg in a Beverly Hills top notch place without insurance.
> > I'd have done that if they hadn't kept stringing me along that I was
> > getting near the top of the list, and if I hadn't already paid WAY
> > more than that in taxes that fund this sort of thing.
>
> Getting both legs done would have cost only a little less than my avg
> yearly income for the last 16 years. I paid for catastrophic insurance
> ($10,000 deductable) for 14 years, but when the premiums went over
> $2,000 per year, I quit. Never collected a cent on it either. BTW,
> I've paid at least a couple hundred thousand in taxes from back in the
> day when I made more money and taxes were higher.
>
> There are plenty of debating points, but I'm sure that the US medical
> system is broken.

Indeed there are debating points, and surely something should be done.
But it would be wise for folks to be wary of Scandinavian or UK style
universal care systems.

Joseph

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 25, 2:06 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed there are debating points, and surely something should be done.
> But it would be wise for folks to be wary of Scandinavian or UK style
> universal care systems.

Don't know that I wish for that sort of thing... but it is probably
the least evil of the alternatives. It makes sense that they would
make you wait for something that isn't life threatening... since it is
free and all, they need some deterant... yes? In the US if you have
"good" insurance (which increasingly few people do) then you can get
in whenever you want to and have all the most expensive procedures
performed... whether you need to or not. And all sorts of drugs that
may or may not do more harm than good. And of course I am paying for
those people's "great" coverage even if I don't have any at all... we
all do.. via taxes and the higher prices that companies who provide
such insurance must charge for their products and services. Wasteful
spending on things we don't need drags down wealth of the entire
society... and I won't go into the incredible waste of spending a
trillion dollars on a war for no good reason.

This is an old study (~1998) but some good info... and things have
surely only gotten worse since then.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Compared to 13 other high income countries, the US was by far the most
expensive and more than double the median. As a percentage of GDP, the
US was 13.6% compared to the median of 8.2%. A satisfaction rating
wasn't given for Norway, but in Denmark it is 91%, Finland 81%,
Sweden 58%, the UK 57%... and the US 40%. The US gets a very low
"health and well being" score as well.

If I had a choice, I'd vote to emulate Denmark and Finland. Either
that or disband the AMA completely, and allow unregulated medicine.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 25, 7:43 pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:06 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed there are debating points, and surely something should be done.
> > But it would be wise for folks to be wary of Scandinavian or UK style
> > universal care systems.
>
> Don't know that I wish for that sort of thing... but it is probably
> the least evil of the alternatives. It makes sense that they would
> make you wait for something that isn't life threatening... since it is
> free and all, they need some deterant... yes? In the US if you have
> "good" insurance (which increasingly few people do) then you can get
> in whenever you want to and have all the most expensive procedures
> performed... whether you need to or not. And all sorts of drugs that
> may or may not do more harm than good. And of course I am paying for
> those people's "great" coverage even if I don't have any at all... we
> all do.. via taxes and the higher prices that companies who provide
> such insurance must charge for their products and services. Wasteful
> spending on things we don't need drags down wealth of the entire
> society... and I won't go into the incredible waste of spending a
> trillion dollars on a war for no good reason.
>
> This is an old study (~1998) but some good info... and things have
> surely only gotten worse since then.http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
>
> Compared to 13 other high income countries, the US was by far the most
> expensive and more than double the median. As a percentage of GDP, the
> US was 13.6% compared to the median of 8.2%. A satisfaction rating
> wasn't given for Norway, but in Denmark it is 91%, Finland 81%,
> Sweden 58%, the UK 57%... and the US 40%. The US gets a very low
> "health and well being" score as well.
>
> If I had a choice, I'd vote to emulate Denmark and Finland. Either
> that or disband the AMA completely, and allow unregulated medicine.

Certainly having folks run to the doctor every 5 minutes is a problem,
and unfortunate that folks who don't go often end up subsidizing them.
But that's no justification for waiting lists. I did have a $300 co-
pay for my procedure here, and while in the US folks may wonder what
they get for their taxes, at least nobody is claiming they get health
care for it. Here people pay taxes for this care, and it is lousy.
That's frustrating.

I've had experiences in California and here in Norway with health
care, and I think the American emphasis on technology skews the costs
somewhat. And perhaps a higher percentage of unnecessary procedures
"to be on the safe side". So direct per-capita expenditure comparisons
are somewhat apples and oranges. Using my experience last year with
appendicitis as an example, the hospital chose to have me wait through
the night because they didn't want to call in a doc on OT, and there
was a chance it would pass. It burst during the night and my
subsequent surgery and recovery were much more involved. A US hospital
would have cut me open right away rather than risk having my appedix
burst on their dime. I'm sure some number of uneccecary prodeures are
performed as a safeguard which of course is expensive. Also later I
had a stomach drain which was just a tube with a bag and gravity did
the trick. In the US I would have been hooked up to a (expensive, or
more so than a rubber tube!) machine to do more or less the same
thing. This machine raises the costs, and I suppose provides
marginally improved service. But I suppose that's just it, where are
the marginal returns, and who should decide what is worth it or not.

Without having spent too much time thinking about it, I think I'd like
to see some sort of government coordinated basic insurance with
payouts that perhaps are just low or no interest loans, and tax
credits for private insurance for those who want (and can afford) more
and opt out of the basic plan. So people don't fall through the
cracks, but at the same time the level of available service isn't
compromised.

Joseph

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 25, 11:43 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is an old study (~1998) but some good info... and things have
> surely only gotten worse since then.http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Quite a lot worse. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"In 2005 (the latest year data are available), total spending was $2
TRILLION in 2005, or $6,700 per person. Total health care spending
represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)."
"Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in
Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5
percent in France"
"47 million Americans are uninsured"
"Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased
87 percent "
"Retiring elderly couples will need $200,000 in savings just to pay
for the most basic medical coverage"