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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (194490)	1/28/2007 12:12:20 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

You already have price controls on health care based on what medicare reimburses. National Corporate Obligations and affiliations are what makes the world go around in Hospitals and Home Care. If you're really serious about lowering costs in health care you change 'end of life' care and start sending people overseas for elective surgery at 10 cents on the dollar. Medicare has a Low Administrative Overhead at something like 5 percent. You can't say that about private insurance.

To: DMaA who wrote (194490)	1/28/2007 12:42:19 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

really advocating by increasing medicare is imposing price controls on health care Yes - in some ways that would be one of the (unintended) effects of making Medicare available for purchase to younger people. But the real issue is not price control, but the overall COST control. I know the problems pretty well, but I don't know the answers. American culture long held that everyone must receive all of the best care available - AND that money should not be a primary consideration when it comes to a person's health and life. As I mentioned before, HMO's are doing a pretty darn good job at eroding the latter belief. Other real cost problems run deeper. Without a tort reform, Dr's have no choice but to "throw the book" at every single case... without being able to make any judgment calls - or taking any risks - on behalf of the patient. Getting into a somewhat riskier subject, we all know that end-of-life care takes a lion's share of the expenses. Did you ever give thought to how most people used to die before the advent of modern care? My take is that most of us used to die of dehydration. Very simple - you would become too weak and too sick - you could no longer eat and drink - and in a day or two or three you were gone. Don't get me wrong - I am NOT advocating euthanasia in any shape or form. However - walk into any hospital in the nation, and check the percentage of demented, unconscious, or otherwise hopeless individuals who are maintained alive - sometimes for years - on various forms of artificial hydration and nutrition. And at a humongous cost, which may run into thousands a day. Again, I don't have the right answers. Tort reform is a much easier issue -- but even that one we seem to be unable to address as a society.