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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (4402)	2/10/2008 9:56:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Medicare dwarfs Iraq as a fiscal issue. Any politician who tries to change it or eliminate does so at his peril. Probably true (at least if its eliminate rather than change), but that's irrelevant to the point it was a response to (just because people don't want to get rid of it doesn't mean it is run well) , and it backs up my 1st point about it being a big future fiscal problem (it it was easy to change or eliminate it wouldn't be such a problem.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (4402)	2/11/2008 2:51:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"Those covered are generally very satisfied..." Like most of your points so far, that is debatable. I know several covered under Medicare who believe it to be a poorly run bureaucracy. It is capricious about what it covers and when and even more capricious about what it reimburses for treatment. Few doctors will accept new Medicare patients because the reimbursement rate means that caring for those patients is not profitable. While doctors do get into the field to care for people, they have the reasonable expectation to be able to choose when and to whom to provide care charitably.