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: Road Walker who wrote (2420)	10/28/2007 10:47:02 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Even if you were right about all 5 points it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to get the type of savings you are talking about. Your probably wrong about compensation. The profit is clearly to small for that to be a decisive factor, even if government would do things at a cost equal to or better than what the private sector does it for minus the profit (a very questionable assumption that is often false). Corruption effects both the private sector and the public sector, and in any case is probably ridiculously small compared to the hundreds of billions of savings that you imagine. "Sales reps" is really a special case of the compensation argument. One where you might have a point (private sales and promotional staff probably will receive more compensation than the closest government equivalent) but again its likely to small of difference. As for savings at the provider end, well you keep saying that private insurance would still be allowed, so the providers still have to be able to deal with a bunch of different insurers.