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 (3973)	1/17/2008 5:03:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Health insurers are no more. People who sell health insurance go find other jobs. Perhaps as workers in the new (or greatly expanded, depending on how you look at it) government insurance program. Marketing costs are virtually eliminated because there is only one health plan and the govt. is the payer.......just like Medicare. So why stop with health insurance. Certainly it would be much more efficent to have a single source for all types of services. Just let the government take over everything. Think of all the money we will save... Single-payer systems basically function like Medicare does. I don't think that is a very strong argument for them. Health insurance companies aren't nationalized. They cease to exist. The specific companies aren't nationalized but the industry is. If the government started to produce steel and sell it at below market prices the steel companies wouldn't be nationalized they would just go out of business, or shift to niches, or perhaps try to produce some other metal (assuming that the steel was cheap enough, of good enough quality, in enough quantity, and remained available for a long time), but the steel industry would still be nationalized.