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: Alighieri who wrote (16138)	4/5/2010 4:51:22 PM
From: Lane3	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 42652

"Of course there would difference in absolute cost." "Of course it does" [save money] Which is it? I thought you acknowledged in the first statement that that the PO would cost more. Now you've flip-flopped. It costs more. It can't help but cost more since the cohort in question will be increasing the amount of consumption for which there are costs. unless you insist on comparing it to a (non) plan that leaves 30M people without insurance. I'm comparing a proposal to the status quo ante, even Steven. You take the same cohort in both scenarios and compare. You want to use one cohort, a smaller cohort, to calculate the cost of the PO to make it look better. Did you really think you could blow apples and oranges by me? If you want to evaluate on a different criterion, universality, the PO wins hands down. On cost, it doesn't. There are lots of criteria on which to judge a health care system. Different systems will score better on different criteria. I can acknowledge that my preferred approach is weak on some criteria. Why can't you?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next