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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (3092)	12/25/2007 10:23:13 AM
From: dybdahl	Respond to of 71456

I think the problems in health care are the same everywhere: it's paid using insurance systems, even though most of health care costs is a direct consequence of choices in our lives. It is easy to make the ski tourist pay extra on health insurance to cover broken legs, but it is much more difficult to make the inactive pay extra for not being active, even though inactivity is much more expensive than broken legs. The U.S. health care system attracts some of the best specialists in the world, and creates some of the best medical knowledge there is, simply because there is more money in health care in USA than in most other countries. This is something that can potentially mean exports, and that's a good thing. However, it is ok to spend money on health care, as long as it is a result of even larger productivity increases. If you are ill but go to work anyway, and just use some drugs to stay on top, it's a good thing from an economic point of view. However, if your health deteriorates to a point, where you are more "the guy who did xxxx" than "the guy who we depend on", then it's a very bad thing. If you look at health statistics, then you can see that many people are heading in this direction, and it will affect national economies.