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: geode00 who wrote (263066)	4/29/2008 7:14:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

but how it applies to Medicare and Medicaid disputes. How does it apply? People putting the data in, in unapproved ways can be, and sometimes have been prosecuted for fraud, over complex technical concerns, when the health care provider's entry may more accurately reflect reality than the government's ideas. I had a very good story about this, that I posted on SI, but I've made over 45000 posts over eight years, on numerous threads, and I can't find it right now even with advanced search. I wish I could find the story, it illustrates the problem far better than my statements about the issue here have. I do not see the need for private insurance to cover normal medical care if normal medical care is covered for all. The possible level of care, can be so high, and so expensive, that no system or organization could fund it for everyone. Even if government provided insurance, can provide everyone with care and support equal to what the average American gets (which is itself a bit questionable) some people have insurance that would provide for a much higher level of care (and of course some would pay for a much higher level of care out of their own pocket). People with "gold-plated" insurance are a minority, perhaps a small one, but not an insignificant one. They are going to want to continue to get such a high level of insurance and service, but there is no way to affordably make this the universal standard. Look at our current situation. Medicare is "universal" for the elderly, but "Medigap" is big business. Also many of the other countries you seem to admire, also allow private insurance. Canada was a notable exception, but that prohibition is breaking down as well. Other countries have things like full coverage which, all by itself, shows the US system is overpriced and inefficient. By itself, it doesn't show anything but itself. Even comined with the fact we pay more it doesn't show the US system is overpriced and inefficient. It is expensive, it may be overpriced, but that isn't shown by your argument. I don't know what point you are making when you talk about consumer surplus. Its an economics term. In everyday words... Well to put it as simply as possible, its how much you value a purchase minus how much it cost you. If a car is worth $25K to you, but you only had to pay $24K for it, you received a thousand dollars in consumer surplus. Companies will, when possible, sometimes try to reduce consumer surplus (with the extra cash going to them) by charging different prices to different consumers. This is called price discrimination. For example airlines try to work out ways to charge business flyers more than other flyers, because the other people might be more likely to not take the trip if the price is too high. If you want more detail about them you can check out these articles (at a quick glance I didn't notice any problem with them) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org How many consumers know what UL is? I wouldn't be surprised if many don't know what the FDA is. No, in the real world companies that engage in all kinds of useless or even harmful activities survive. Sure they do. But not to the extent that this happens with government organizations. Competition isn't perfect, esp. because governments will seek to protect companies, but its better than a total lack of competition. So, you are saying that after I'm stricken dead from eating a contaminated product, I will no longer hold the corporation whose product killed me in high regard. Yes, that will certainly work. It works rather well. Not you no longer holding them in high regard, but no one holding them in high regard. If a company kills a few of its customers, it loses a lot of, perhaps all of its customers. This is of course not a perfect protection, it may not even be a sufficient protection, but it is does provide protection and 1 - We don't have perfect protection now, not even close. and 2 - This would not have to be the only form of protection. You can have lawsuits, and you can have a non-government checking process, and/or you can have government laws and regulations against such things. Once again "libertarian" does not mean anarchist. The function of the FDA I was questioning was its approval of drugs. People die waiting for FDA approval, why should they be punished for taking a drug that may save their life?