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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (7154)	12/5/2002 12:31:29 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

True. My bro' is a doc and both he and his wife (she's an OBGYN) are make lots less than me, his baby brother, the black sheep of the family who got into technology... He sends me regular reports from PA where docs are fleeing to other states w. 1/10th the insurance scam rates. The fact is, the 40 million people w/o insurance get medical care anyway, we all pay anyway, and it's the inefficiencies in the middlemen that cause the costs. You can't find a pie chart of real medical costs, because if you did you'd see the docs get 11%, the drug cos, lawyers and insurance cos get over half, and the facilities and support staff and minority share. It's argued ad nauseum that single-payer medical care is "socialist" but the fact is that systems like the Swiss are 1/3 the cost and just as good, plus you can pay your own expenses if you want extraordinary care, and all the docs are private. It's no more socialist than Calif which requires everyone to have car insurance, and the attornies and insurance cos don't play the big role they do here. Even the drug co's are negotiated down to a still-profitable 1/3 of US prices. We'd save maybe $1/3 trillion