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 (3971)	1/17/2008 4:39:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Get rid of the private health insurance companies and you automatically get rid of sales/marketing costs and profit margins. You don't get rid of marketing. Health care providers will still have to market (unless your nationalizing them as well). And government health insurance programs will have a reduced but still existent information/marketing cost. As for profits, you act like they are a bad thing. Profit and the profit motive aren't just good for those who make the profits. Seeking profit drives efforts for greater efficiency and responsiveness to the consumer. I also should have earlier mentioned that lower medical costs would make American companies more competitive against their foreign competitiors. True (as long as the lower cost doesn't come with lower quality and levels of service, and to an extent even if it does), but "paid for by the government" is hardly something that automatically or even usually results in higher efficiency or lower costs. Your making assumptions which may not be true. That's fine, everyone does it, and often you have to do it, but when your trying to develop an argument the fact that the assumptions are questionable weakens the argument.