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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (303965)	9/22/2006 1:24:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574043

re: I don't have a specific claim about how much the governments costs would be pushed up. Actually they would be lowered: Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it. re: Also to the extent that the total costs would be cheaper, that would probably at least partially rely on tighter rationing, or in other words less health care being provided. Part of the reason single payer is less expensive is that they tend to stress preventive medicine... and because everyone is insured, problems are detected earlier and cured more cheaply. It pretty much given that though our health care is by far the most expensive in the world our results are mediocre.