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: John Koligman who wrote (4320)	2/5/2008 8:21:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The article also mentioned some surveys that show 25% of people without insurance that get cancer become essentially destitute, and 20% with also do so. I missed this the first time around. It doesn't look like having insurance provides much protection in this regard. Not much difference betweet 20 and 25 percent.

To: John Koligman who wrote (4320)	2/5/2008 8:49:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

the piece he did on French healthcare where they have doctors cruising around in cars waiting to take home calls was quite an eye opener. Doesn't sound cost effective to me. I didn't actually see the movie so its hard to say for sure, but judging by your brief description and the known facts it would seem that one of the following is true. 1 - Moore outright lied about this. (I don't actually think this one is true) 2 - Moore showed something that did/does happen but isn't constant or typical. (This one is my guess, although there might be a bit of #3 as well.) 3 - France's health care really isn't a lot cheaper, just better at hiding cost, or imposing costs indirectly. Can you describe that part of the movie in more detail. Maybe there is some other explanation that I would think of if I knew more detail about what he showed.