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 (24043)	7/4/2012 10:23:50 AM
From: skinowski	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 42652

I've been wondering for years - why doesn't the government administer Medicare directly. I can understand - 50 years ago we didn't have computers, and it was wiser to farm out the actual hands-on work to local insurance companies. But now, we have the ability to handle any volume of information. What is stopping them? Could it be that too many politicians are in the pockets of the insurance companies? Or, maybe this would end their cute legend that Medicare runs with a 4% overhead? That they may be forced to admit that it costs closer to 25% or more? I think the largest reason is that they do not think they'd be able to do it. But if so, then how would they be able to run a socialized national system? Answer - they wouldn't. They would farm out the hands-on aspects to local insurers. That's why they are not pushing for truly socialized healthcare - but only for single payer. They want others to do the work, while they control the money - and the people. The costs of healthcare would remain roughly the same. We would get a lot more bureaucracy, more post office level care - and no savings.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next