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: Oblomov who wrote (259896)	9/11/2003 12:13:58 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<<If medical treatment is a "right", then why don't doctors perform their moral duty for free?>> Many do...you just never hear about it. <<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?>> 90%? Hell, no! A plan could easily be structured that would not engender much more spending than we're doing now (you just need someone who knows what they're doing, not Hillary Clinton, designing it). A very basic package of benefits, with an extremely limited formulary....employers could supplement it up to current healthcare standards (indeed, the plan could be designed to allow a "plug-in" module of benefits to simply piggyback the basic coverage, without the morass of coordination of benefits problems you see today when multiple insurers are involved. Would innovation suffer? Unlikely...demand for "health care" will still be there, and they'll still have pricing power for new products on the margin. Even if it does (somewhat), frankly, the current system will collapse on itself within 30 years if changes aren't made, and I can guarantee that innovation will suffer if that happens.