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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (183553)	2/26/2006 11:33:39 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tossing out the components the USA is substantially better at, isn't the solution. It's better to focus on the parts that are broke: - Rx - administrative costs - preventive care - equality in women's care Our insurance agent said Rx drugs are responsible for an enormous portion of the increase in medical premiums in the overall industry. I think you would agree that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Also, something like 50k accidents happen per year due Rx prescriptions - doctors abuse drugs by way over prescribing a cocktail of drugs relative to other countries. Separately, an article said administrative costs were something like 35% or 45% of the medical bills. Cut that waste out by imposing one-price for everyone (rather than allowing hospitals to charge different consumers different prices) and implement automation, and watch that cost decrease to 3%. As far as infant mortality? Insurance companies don't support a women's right to breastfeed, e.g. lactation consultants aren't an insured beneft, breastbumps aren't a covered benefit. Babies are tossed formula before they leave the hospital. But formula feeding results in more than 3X illnesses of pneumonia, than breastfed babies. (Reread that fact again.) Further, formula babies have a substantially higher asthma rate (which puts them at higher risk) and a multitude of other issues, including lower IQ. Aetna reports that the medical bills are $1,500/year higher if the mother doesn't breastfeed. And that doesn't even include the lifetime additional medical costs that formula fed babies yield onto the system. Sick babies can turn into life-long sick adults, with huge medical bills. Of course, corporations don't permit insurance companies to give women the right to breastfeed, by denying insurance for lactation care and breastpumps, which ironically would be a one-time cost that is substantially less than $1500. So, while the cost equation definitively proves it is substantially more economical to cover this, the reason why corporations don't force their insurance companies to cover this, is because it's one way corporations can get rid of women with children in the workforce. Corporations will use health care insurance as a way to create a level of discrimination against women with children, in order to encourage women with children to leave the workforce. And it certainly seems to be working. Of course, if you're childless like you and me, aside from being bothered by the serious ethics issue it raises, it's not a problem for us until we start noticing that healthcare is consuming 20% of the GDP. Regards, Amy J