SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (90938)9/30/2007 11:35:19 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favorRead Replies (1) of 306849
 
I'm not against single payor in principle. It's not a panacea for all that ails the US health care system. It would solve some of the problems or rather, exchange those for others which may be less objectionable. GDP expenditure on health care would be reduced, and there would be no "uninsured" by definition. Cost-shifting would be eliminated, resulting in significant savings. If tied in with an effective tort reform proposal, more savings would be realized (and some of the expected loss in medical manpower would be attenuated a bit).

On the downside, there would be a real reduction in availability of care on demand i.e., waiting lists for services where there are currently none (of course, for the uninsured the "wait" can be infinite currently). Certain services would be eliminated (things like dialysis for patient's over a certain age, some transplants, some marginal operations that have limited proven benefit). I don't think people who are proponents (of single payor) have realistic expectations on this, and how it will impact the average person. In my opinion, it's a "pick your poison" choice, but the more dysfunctional the current system gets, the better by comparison single payor is.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext