A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (2882)	11/13/2007 7:44:08 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) of 42652

re: For the moment lets assume that's true. OK 1 - Move to one form of universal coverage for everyone that was the equal to the average of developed nations outside the US. But than the covered people, at least many of them, would have lower quality care than they have now. That's not true. You assume US care would be downgraded. Not a given by any means. 2 ... The problem here is that if many Americans switch to a poorer national plan presumably their coverage/results would be worse. "Presumably" by who? Same bad point. OK. Its possible this could work, and make the results better overall, esp. if a lot of people still had private insurance (or paid out of pocket for better care). But it won't touch the "we pay twice as much" theme. We would pay even more than we do now. No we wouldn't. The European industrialised countries pay 50% per capita less than we do. Our cost would go down. All the newly covered people will probably cost more than they do now. Yes you might lower emergency room care, and get reduction in future costs from earlier preventive care, but the earlier and more extensive testing and preventive care will itself cost money, and in general these newly insured people will be consuming more health care. You throw out cost assumptions as facts. Why doesn't it work that way in the rest of the world? 4 - "Gold plated" universal care. A level of coverage and care equal to the what the well insured in the US currently get. Now your probably massively increasing cost. BS. The very rich get "gold plated" coverage. They fly to the Cleveland Clinic when they get cancer because they pay for it ot of pocket. The average working guy goes to his bronze local hospital and hopes for decent care. You make it sound like everybody in America with insurance sees the #1 specialist in the country... it ain't true. "Gold plated" care would be cheap if you relieved the burden of what catastrophic standard care costs. More FUD. Your assumption is that the US is going to be as bad or worse than the worst universal system. We can learn from their experience; we can do it better and we can take care of the people who need medical care.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next