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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51540)	3/4/2008 2:17:34 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543518

>>I think there's opportunity there, but don't forget that profit drives quality improvements. Those treatments might not have been available for you if someone hadn't been motivated by profit in their development and proliferation.<< Karen - I see that point about how potential profits drive research and development of new and better treatments. It's clear that the current system, where motivation for profit is the only incentive, rewards the development of new treatments no matter how expensive they are, since insurers pay most of the costs. In fact, more expensive treatments and diagnostic procedures will often be preferred by those who are taking the risk of funding the research. I think there must be ways to eliminate the profit structure and still provide incentives for R&D. We might even reward people more for coming up with effective treatments that are less expensive than current ones. If done properly, socializing the healthcare industry might well allow us to provide more services at a lower overall cost. I would not favor making participation in the system mandatory, however. I think people should have the choice to pay huge amounts of money to private providers if they want an even higher level of service. - Allen