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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (40031)	9/10/2005 2:08:21 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

That reply was chock full of things to follow up on. I'll choose one from column "C:" The last thing wanted in public health care is to encourage neurotics to use it over and over again because it gets them out of the house. This is a definite problem in American medicine, particularly fee-for-service plans such as the ones slowly destroying the auto companies. When the $100 deductible became common in the late 50's, early 60's, $100 was a lot of money. Today, it is nothing and usage skyrockets as soon as it is passed. I think this is also something of a cultural problem, in that people are more than willing to abuse something they think is delivered for "free" after that point. HMO's attempt to control that by using the primary care physician as the gatekeeper, and are generally successful. As ever-increasing numbers of Americans are choosing or are forced into HMO's, the argument for nationalized health care will probably gain strength, IMO. However, there are two great hurdles to that idea that may prevent it ever happeninig. The first is that trial lawyers control one political party here and have great influence within the other party's congressional caucus. There is a lot of money to be made in healthcare-related lawsuits (see: Edwards, John) and it seems to me that they will never give that up. The second is that the United States government is horribly inefficient at delivering services of any type on a national basis and there is no reason to believe that would suddenly be as efficient with regard to this subject. Unlike Canada, I doubt any system devised in the US would permit state authorities much, if any, control or influence over the system. In the name of "fairness," it would be "one size fits all."

To: Solon who wrote (40031)	9/10/2005 2:25:12 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

This line reminded me of something that happened about two months before I moved from Portland, Oregon: We remember the "crime" of Jean Val Jean. How much did it cost the State to hunt him down over a 25 cent loaf of bread that could have been given him? Two Portlanders were arrested in Yuba City, CA, about 500 miles south of Portland, after a routine traffic stop and license plate check revealed they were driving a car stolen from Portland. They apparently confessed to having stolen the car. The District Attorney subsequently announced that they would not be extradited back to Oregon because of the costs involved. Needless to say, this generated some discussion about whether or not stealing vehicles was still a crime in Portland, as the Washington border is just across the river and the extradition costs presumably the same. My own car was stolen about 10 days later.