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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (17515)	11/24/2003 7:23:27 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

I think the facts speak for themselves, unless you are blinded by ideology. That's useful information, but not the whole story. The cultural differences between the US and Switzerland make the comparison apples and oranges. The sad fact is that US infant mortality is so high because of lack of prenatal care for large segments of the population. Do you think that universal health care would fix that? Perhaps it would if the system provided nine months of institutionalized care at facilities in Iowa for pregnant women.

To: KyrosL who wrote (17515)	11/24/2003 9:16:58 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793834

France, Germany, Switzerland have had "socialized" medicine for more than a generation. The USA does not. Where do you suppose the wealthy in those countries go for real medical care? Their care costs less because they have many fewer health workers per capita...and their hospitals suck...And they do not have lawyers running after every ambulance and checking every doctor prescribed treatment.

To: KyrosL who wrote (17515)	11/24/2003 11:05:04 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793834

Well, you can call it conservative dogma if you like. But I would go even further and challenge the entire assumption regarding cost. In other words, what cost of health care are you really measuring? And be specific... Are you factoring in the benefits to our society of well paid doctors, nurses and people involved in the medical industry? It's not a one line linear cost issue. We have some of the best R&D facilities in the world, some of the best pharmaceutical companies in the world, some of the best hospitals in the world, and some of our best and brightest people working in those fields. When they get paid, they in turn become consumers who purchase goods and services. We also have a multi-billion dollar insurance industry which has million of people doing the same thing. I would also challenge the cost numbers by simply removing one aspect of our health care cost and that's the cost of litigation. Once again, in regard to the infant mortality issue. Our hospitals go to tremendous lengths to try and save a preemie baby. Where another culture may call it a miscarriage, we may call it an infant death. Are you so certain the measurements are even across the board? Statistics may give us some clues, but they certainly don't tell the whole story. As the years pass, our linked system will continue to excel in comparison to socialized systems around the world and lead the world in new discoveries, new devices to save lives, and new machines to help people heal. Have you factored into your statistics the removal of America's medical discoveries in medicine, and what effect they in turn have had in those countries to prolong life? Or, do you just think it's a coincidence we lead the world in creative new medical discoveries? All these things and many more should be factored into the cost/benefit equation.