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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (204143)	9/23/2006 4:42:01 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I went and looked, our system is so full of rot, and management mismanagement that it is hard to believe that the US is worse. but the US seems to be worse. Knowing how bad our system is one cannot imagine yours is actually worse. It does leave a question since since 1971 why has it been what seems to be a continuous slide? yesmagazine.org And equally important question is that since these statistics were compiled between 1999 and 2005 why has this decline been going on so long. This didn't just happen. In Canada things started to go downhill 14 years ago when the liberals cut funding to the provinces. It has gotten worse each year.

To: KyrosL who wrote (204143)	9/23/2006 9:42:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

US health care can be quite reasonable if you belong to an HMO, although the health care providers have no incentive to push good care on you, you have to push for it yourself, but if you're willing to push, they really can't refuse. If you want the freedom of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, it comes at a high price, but for many, it's worth it. My brother, who has the PPO flavor of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, just had surgery for kidney cancer. I can't remember precisely what his out of pocket expenses will top out at, either $3K or $7K, both of which are doable. I would be wary of studies funded by think tanks, unless you know their agenda. The Commonwealth Fund favors universal health care coverage, has done so for many years, so naturally their studies are skewed that way. Universal health care isn't free, you pay for it when you pay your taxes. Low income people in the US are eligible for Medicaid or some state run version of same. They pay almost nothing for health care, because the US taxpayer subsidizes it. The "gold standard" for health care, in the world, remains the US, as evidenced by people with money, who come here because they can. It is no doubt true that poor people have a hard time getting the same kind of treament a rich person can get with no difficulty. If the "solution" is that the rich person gets no better treatment than the poor person, well, that's egalitarian, but no incentive for health care providers to improve. Rather, if they get paid the same no matter what services they provide, they'll do as little as they can. That's human nature, and you can't change human nature, not even at the point of a gun.