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: Road Walker who wrote (311732)	11/22/2006 11:31:04 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1590259

And medicare figures don't include the costs for the doctors to deal with medicare. Single payer may have a lower cost here. Its reasonably likely (but not totally certain) that it will. But single payer still has a cost. Also there is reason to think that Medicare's overhead would go up if we made it a program for everyone. There would probably be demand to make it more flexible (which would increase overhead costs), and if the younger people that were added to the system had less claims, and on the average smaller claims, then the administrative overhead for them would probably be a larger percentage, even if it might be a smaller dollar amount. To get a real cost comparison you have to include all the costs, both from Medicare, and from private insurance. I've seen no figure for all of Medicare's costs. I've seen wildly different figures for private insurance's costs. You present the case as something like "Medicare is cheaper and more efficient and the numbers back me up", but you don't have the real relevant numbers. I can't solidly refute you because I don't have the real relevant numbers either. Instead we have different guesses and estimates, that aren't even really estimates of the total cost, but rather only part of the cost.