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: Katelew who wrote (3967)	1/17/2008 3:53:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Democrats are searching for ways to expand coverage by using the PRIVATE sector. Not exactly. Even if the insurance comes from the private sector, if its paid for, subsidized by, or mandated by the government you have a public sector program. As a capitalist, I also like a single-payer system because it is a substantially cheaper system That has not been established. Also that change really does make things cheaper it may do so by reducing level and/or quality of service. It's also important to understand that a single-payer system is not defined as a socialized system. England has a socialized system. England has a socialized health care system. Single payer is a socialized health care insurance system. You guys conflate all kinds of issues and overcomplicate a very simple debate. If you don't think the issue is complex your either missing something or only addressing it on a very superficial level.

To: Katelew who wrote (3967)	1/17/2008 5:54:29 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You and others on this thread keep referring to socialized medicine when NO ONE is suggesting this be the approach to healthcare in this country. There are several people on this thread advocating nationalizing the health insurance industry. That is, indeed, an element of socialized medicine. Also posters are advocating the systems practiced abroad, generally, which have a range including Britain's fully socialized medicine. You guys conflate all kinds of issues and overcomplicate a very simple debate. I'm not conflating anything, just trying to not use so many words. We struggled with labels for a while on this thread. It gets really complicated if you have to specify which flavor in each posts, so I just started using "socialized medicine" as a simplified way of talking about the array of nationalization options. I assure you that I know the difference between Britain's system and Canada's. I'm just trying to simplify the discussion, although I can see why that might not be apparent. As a capitalist, I also like a single-payer system because it is a substantially cheaper system...about 30% cheaper. As much as advocates may repeat the mantra, that has not been demonstrated. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't cheaper. We don't know. I get tired of people repeating as fact that which is superficially suggestive.

To: Katelew who wrote (3967)	1/17/2008 6:06:23 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Academics, however, look at US healthcare and see virtue in a single-payer system. As a capitalist, I also like a single-payer system because it is a substantially cheaper system...about 30% cheaper. As a capitalist, I like to pay less for things. As an American capitalist, I would also like a cheaper healthcare system so that healthcare costs don't bankrupt people and put a drag on the American economy." Academics have a history of designing things that don't work. "about 30% cheaper." Change that to 45% more expensive and your statement would be aligned with historical experience. Thus your statement changes to: As a capitalist, I like to pay more for things. It makes no sense once corrected.