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: i-node who wrote (6487)	3/25/2009 11:26:33 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Getting government involved in the payment process does NOT improve the situation I don't think there's anything wrong with having the government make the payments. The feds are really good at sending out checks. They send out bazillions of them without a hiccup. It's having the government making decisions on coverage and pricing that's the problem.

To: i-node who wrote (6487)	3/25/2009 11:37:32 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

They don't "provide" it. They just write a check to pay for it, for gods sake. I don't know how you get to the idea of them "being in the middle" of it. They don't process the claims. They don't make health care decisions for their employees. They 'buy it'. He who has the gold makes the rules. It's not a free market when the buyer is not the person that receives the benefit. I don't support the status quo with regard to costs. I just different with people about how you improve the situation. All I've seen for you is slight efficiencies around the edges to improve costs. You are constantly defending the cost structure. So what is your solution?