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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (67581)	10/16/2008 3:57:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It's also noticed that these companies (presumably because of the additional commercial structures and the requirement for profits) tend to be no cheaper, indeed often more expensive, than exactly the same quantity and quality of care provided by the NHS That's really hard to measure. Quality of care is not simple to measure, and costs have generally been going up (even in real per capita terms) anyway so an increase after a change may not represent an increase because of the change. You could however say that the change has not been spectacularly successful in containing costs. But it probably shouldn't be expected to do so, partially because of the rising trend, and partially because turning the same sort of system over to private hands without significantly reforming it or allowing market forces to operate through most or all of it, isn't likely to result in significant benefit. In many areas market solutions tend to be better than government solutions but the reason for this is not because the companies providing it are private, but because they face a real competitive market. Its not that people in the private sector are inherently better than people in the public sector, its that the incentives they face tend to push them to do things more efficiently. If you set up a situation where the incentives work in some other way, than you lose that advantage.

To: thames_sider who wrote (67581)	10/16/2008 4:05:03 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

US is the only developed nation not to have state-funded universal healthcare? Frankly, m'dear, I don't give a damn ;<( As a practical matter, anybody here gets care through very expensive Emergency room mandates. In a sane world the provision of care, insurance, and all would be left to he discovery process of a free market. That would work toward containing costs while improving quality. Never happen! Before the politicians poked their snouts in here, charity did a good enough job of caring for the indigent. With the increase in the size of the pie (now in question, thanks to a monumental failure of government and it's "money" management) relative to population, charity could do an even better job now. That Economist issue I mentioned rated various nations at the top in different categories. For example, if memory serves, Singapore beat all in infant care. Overall, they rated Japan the best, and noted there and then doctors, hospitals and insurers were in competition with the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. That in a nation with the highest tobacco incineration rates.