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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6439)	3/22/2009 9:57:58 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

If a significant portion of medical care demand went to medical care tourism, than you would have fewer hospitals, and fewer CT scanners in the US. Yeah, I think that's what Lane was saying, too. I just think that fewer hospitals, even if you had fewer patients, would be a cutting of services. The bottom line is that when you take money out of American health care the quality of the service, on some level, declines. It may be because there are fewer facilities available, or because of drugs being sold for less money in other countries (which is done solely because those drugs cannot be sold at full price in those countries, so anything above variable cost to produce & market is fixed cost contribution margin), or whatever. This concept presumes that more hospitals equates to better care overall, or more physicians or whatever, which I think is a true statement. I agree those costs are sunk and it would be years before any cutback conceivably might be realized, but the pointing I'm getting to is that a cutback is a deterioration of services to those seeking hospital care in America. I can see it both ways though.