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 (3284)	12/16/2007 11:55:08 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Again, we are talking about a 100% difference in cost. Those factors could easily account for more than a 100% difference, and those aren't the only factors, just the important ones I could think of off the top of my head. Maybe they don't account for the whole cost difference. There is no easy way to tell. But there is no solid reason to think that they collectively matter less than the structure of the payment system. In fact there is no particular reason to think that each one of them matters less. As for the payment system you don't have a simple situation where the US has type X payment system and other rich countries have type Y. Each countries system is unique. Its possible to draw categories to put the US in one category and all the other countries in another, but its just as reasonable to break them down differently. The UK has a socialist health care system. Canada had a serious attempt at single payer (although the SINGLE part seems to be breaking down), other nations have various requirements and subsides instead. You have a whole range of systems, not 12 countries with one, and the US with another.