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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (262760)	5/7/2008 6:48:41 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As it has been pointed out, the US system is very inefficient. Therefore the best argument against the current system is that simply by switching over to a unified system (similar to Canada's) you can get a lot more bang for the buck. Furthermore, it is not so hard to define what the basic health care should look like. We can start with vaccination and preventive care, as that is in the best interest of the public and the private sector is not very interested in things that prevent continuing medical costs. Then we can move on to things like if there is a serious threat to your life and limb (as in a crash accident) then the nearest and/or best equipped hospital nearby has to let you in nurse you to reasonable recovery. Beyond that, a couple of annual checkups could be included too...all this would cost a lot less than its opponents think. The idea that governments are always inefficient wasteful bureaucracies is more based on the private sector's desire to keep a strong competitor (the government) out of the market than with reality. ST