Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (323002)	11/25/2002 9:00:31 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't have a solution, but last week I read something interesting and I really couldn't understand how it could be true. But the article was about a study comparing the cost of healthcare in Canada, where there is government paid universal health care, and the U.S. where healthcare is largely privatized. The study found that the U.S. government spends more on healthcare per capita than Canada. I think the study was suggesting that the single government run health insurance program was more efficient, cost-wise, than the privately run health care. Sorry, I can't find a link to the story...

To: JDN who wrote (323002)	11/25/2002 10:12:06 AM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If the public bought health insurance the way they buy auto insurance, with competition among the insurers and hard thinking by the buyers about what coverage they really need and how high their deductible should be and the like it would go a long way toward making the insurance affordable. Another major help would be for medicare to pay full price for the services it uses so that the costs don't get shifted to the private sector which is what is happening now.