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: Road Walker who wrote (2906)	11/15/2007 10:32:26 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 42652

Assuming that each new insured person consumes no more health care than the previous customers, unit costs might go down. If you have underutilized MRI machines and other expensive devices you will save money there. Buying more materials would probably at best be only a very small change, buying an extra 10% or whatever might not result in any per unit savings. Its not like the orders would typical double. But a very large part of the cost is the cost for the labor. Its hard to get significant economies of scale on this type of service cost, unless the labor is currently very underutilized, which I don't think is usually the case, or unless you accept more rushed, lower quality service. You would probably also get longer waiting times, both for time with the doctors, and for medical equipment. Sure you might get a situation where the equipment is used at 50% capacity and now you are moving to 60%, with no significant wait time increase; but you would get a lot of cases where capacity is already near the limit, and you either have to buy a second unit (thus increasing costs, even per patient), or you have to accept longer wait times.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next