SI
SI
discoversearch

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: John Koligman who wrote (5975)2/10/2009 12:49:49 PM
From: gg cox1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 42652
 
<<Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; "healthy life expectancy" is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America's largest car-producing region.>>

newsweek.com

Just the facts from a New York lad....

fareedzakaria.com



To: John Koligman who wrote (5975)2/10/2009 5:43:16 PM
From: Lane32 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
I guess that's why sick people can't GET insurance, BECAUSE the SYSTEM is working AS IT SHOULD.

I will assume that you missed the point intentionally.

The point was that insurance is not the best vehicle for delivering health care. It has been contorted and corrupted to fit into a round hole in which it doesn't belong. If insurance companies are required to disregard risk, what they are selling is not insurance.

People who live in riot-prone neighborhoods often can't get insurance for fire or vandalism. If they can, they have to pay through the nose for it. Do you have a problem with that, too? What would you like to see insurance companies do instead?