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: TimF who wrote (4032)	1/18/2008 10:06:03 PM
From: Katelew	Respond to of 42652

i'm on the phone with daughter but will answer you

To: TimF who wrote (4032)	1/19/2008 12:50:25 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42652

Also a lesser degree of marketing and presentation of information would be needed even with a government system. I agree with you on this. And I'd assume those costs exist with the European systems I keep talking about. Others would replace the health insurance companies with government insurance, but then you lose on choice, and possibly lose on efficiency. (You benefit from greater economy of scale, and lowered marketing expenses, but you lose the positive effects of the drive to profit, and you lose labor flexibility) In a single-payer system, the production and delivery of health care stays in the private sector. Doctors, nurses, pharmas, clinics, etc. stay just as they are now. The government doesn't own anything or pay the salaries, etc. That is what differentiates a single-payer system from a fully socialized system. So I don't see how labor flexibility would be changed. And we, the consumer, remain free as to where to go and who to use for getting health services. In reality, however, there could and probably would be cost containment issues. If the government becomes the entity that pays the bills, it more or less becomes the entity that sets the prices. Just as with Medicare. All the players operating in the private sector are subjected to negotiating with the government for their fees. This is a dramatic departure from our current system and can't be minimized. You would have a situation where, for ex., a doctor says 'I want to charge $5000 for a gall bladder surgery' and you have a government that says 'sorry, I'm only going to pay you $4000'!! Great care and perspective would be needed to design a system that didn't undermine the quality of our healthcare, I would think. You have multiple plans, from multiple sources I don't see why some of that couldn't be retained in a single-payer system in the US. The government could offer a few different plans that have different levels of benefits with differents levels of cost attached. This might appeal to businesses who could then offer fancier plans to their most valuable employees. Or more likely, the government could administer a basic plain vanilla plan, and private insurers could pick up the rest, i.e. coverage for less critical expenses such as cosmetic surgery, extensive physical therapy, cosmetic dentistry, etc. Or the government could provide a plain vanilla plan, and the public could just learn how to SAVE UP for the other stuff, LOL.