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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (1935)	9/1/2007 7:23:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Of course if that family of four wants things like preventive care and routine tests such as a colonoscopy... But it probably wouldn't. Typically, you don't need a colonoscopy until you're an empty nester. Sure, there are exceptions, but most parents with children in the house don't need much in the way of preventive care or "routine tests." Most routine tests either don't start until the kids are gone or are recommended only every five years or so, which is budgetable. A catastrophic coverage policy works for that scenario.

To: John Koligman who wrote (1935)	9/1/2007 10:24:38 AM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Re French health care.. The one part in Moore's "Sicko" that didn't wash with me was his account of French health care. A friend of mine was born and raised in France and continues to return there to visit family. This excerpt... <<<...Almost everyone in France is covered by one of three insurance schemes: general, agricultural or self-employed/non agricultural. These insurance schemes refund between 60 and 70 per cent of what the patient pays a doctor, and approximately 80 per cent of the country's 60 million residents buy supplementary insurance to cover some or all of the remaining charges, while some low-income French residents get their co-payments covered by a free insurance scheme...>>> findarticles.com accurately describes the way the French system works according to my now Canadian, with French origin, friend. He tells me that he prefers the Canadian system.His opinion only.

To: John Koligman who wrote (1935)	9/2/2007 1:33:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The $219 a month is real insurance, not a health care payment plan that is called insurance. Its to cover things that you couldn't afford to pay for, not to cover routine medical items. Hopefully it also lets you get the negotiated rate even when you have to pay yourself. Think of car insurance. You probably don't have insurance that covers oil changes or buying new tires when your old ones wear out. As for Micheal Moore, even when the images he presents are accurate, there just images, and they arranged in totally one sided ways. You don't have to directly lie to give a distorted picture.

To: John Koligman who wrote (1935)	11/12/2007 9:33:07 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Sicko and Socialism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Katarina Koncokova November 7, 2007 I didn't have a chance to see Michael Moore's latest movie Sicko until several weeks after its release. A friend of mine saw it, and I was quite intrigued after hearing how disillusioned and disgusted he became with the United States' healthcare system after watching the film. I listened to my friend's comments with a grain of salt, fearing that once again Michael Moore had come up with another biased "documentary,” this time promoting universal healthcare, which I am very familiar with since I grew up in former socialist Czechoslovakia. Despite my skepticism, I decided to go and see the movie for myself to "discover" the great benefits of government -run healthcare, which apparently I wasn't aware of. The film made a stronger than expected impression on me. Prior to watching Sicko, I was not deeply aware about the complexity of the healthcare system in the U.S. I was aware of the fact that millions of people in the United States live without health insurance, but I was rather stunned to learn about the awful consequences of not being covered. Moreover, I realized that having health insurance does not always translate into peace of mind. As shown in the movie, in some cases, even patients with health insurance are faced with unpleasant surprises such as denial of certain treatments. More often than not, as the film points out, these denials of care are encouraged by the insurance companies which offer high incentives for doctors, who by denying care, save them money. I was quite disturbed by this and I realized that my health (or anybody else's, for that matter) should not be in the health insurance company's hands nor in anyone else's. In the hope of finding a better solution to this problem, Michael Moore suggests we should make our government responsible for health care coverage, as opposed to the health insurance companies. But is this really the best solution? Is universal healthcare the answer? Is the government going to provide us with better healthcare than what we have today? Considering the past performance of our government as an indicator, I personally would not want them to get involved in important matters such as healthcare. Besides, the universal healthcare systems present in Canada, France and England are far from being flawless. What Michael Moore fails to portray in his "documentary" are the long waiting lists as well as the lack of doctors and hospitals, hence the lack of care that people in these countries are faced with. It is important to note that it is not the U.S. healthcare itself that is the problem but rather the way we pay for it. It is undeniably true that the quality of healthcare in the United States is extremely high, with great doctors and great hospitals with the latest technology, as pointed out by Harvard Business School Professor Regina Herzling on John Stossel's TV special on healthcare. The issue with the U.S. healthcare system is its cost. And why is healthcare in America so expensive? The answer is simple: We don't pay for it. Someone else is paying for it, thus you will always be dependent on that someone, whether it is the government or the insurance company, to decide for you whether and when you will receive a treatment. Isn't time to take responsibility into our own hands? Why should the government or the health insurance make decisions for us? Katarina Koncokova is a student at the Hawaii Pacific University. grassrootinstitute.org