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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (259887)	9/11/2003 7:39:49 AM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

patron, if you get your way, you won't just get opposition. I think that the social consequences will be much worse. The problem with socialist (and I use this term descriptively, not pejoratively) answers to social problems is that they fail time and again to account for unintended consequences. The project is assumed to be noble because the intentions are noble. I admire the moral convictions of those who advance the idea of universal coverage. But what if the consequences are a return to 90% marginal tax rates (and a police state to match)? Would it have been worth it then? But the most disastrous consequence would be a decline in innovation and quality of care. If medical treatment is a "right", then why don't doctors perform their moral duty for free? No ethical system insists that someone be paid for being ethical, after all. The fact is that HCPs need incentives to do their work well. Biotech/pharma and device manufacturers need incentives to innovate. Which is better at setting the incentives, the market or a bureaucrat? The government has a role. But the government has created much of this mess with Medicare/Medicaid. Just because these programs are popular does not mean that they are a model for the rest of the system. Stalin was popular too, at least at the official ballot box.