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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (199892)	5/3/2009 4:41:41 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

again: pure ignorance. it is now entirely clear that the move into medicare advantage plans resulted in higher costs and worse care. "Numerous studies from the Congressional Budget Office, MedPAC, scholars and foundations report that it costs about 14 percent more to provide care through private Medicare Advantage plans than through the traditional public Medicare program. Further, administrative costs account for approximately 11 percent of private Medicare spending, compared to approximately 2 percent in the traditional Medicare program." you really should stick with software

To: i-node who wrote (199892)	5/3/2009 6:00:32 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>Well, I agree this is a problem and there is no simple solution.<< the solution is an angry public mob who turn to the government to provide their health care. it has little to do with the morality of providing health care (that's mostly a smoke screen). it has everything to do with the boomers trying to get the next generation to pay for boomer health care. and the name boomer wasn't random - they have lots of voting power. >>But this is a problem primarily because Medicare and Medicaid are government run programs instead of being privatized as Medicare Part D is. Had Medicare Parts A and B been done the way D was, I suspect we'd have a much more controlled growth today.<< data please. >>But in the end, sure, health care is going to consume more money. Why? It is about self-preservation -- we don't mind spending large sums of money in our efforts to keep our family members around for just a bit longer.<< well, other people's money, anyway. >>Ultimately, if we don't want to do this spending there is only one solution -- cut quality. That's what Obama wants to do (although they won't admit that) and that is what Canada and Great Britain have done with their socialized medicine.<< they have to limit exotic health care or costs will explode. the other factor is forcing the young to start paying $800 a month to fund the healthcare of guys like bill gates and warren buffett and the boomers. that's the big play here - the boomers want subsidized health care at the expense of others. >>I just don't think we're ready for it here. At this point, Americans still feel they should take every measure to save a life. These are very hard decisions for a country to make, and in fairness there is no "right or wrong". Obama's claim that we have a "right" to health care runs counter to my sensibilities, yet I understand some others are going expect and believe that. I don't know how you get consensus on it. Ultimately, we were bound to elect a president and give him a supportive congress that makes socialized health care happen. Looks to me there is little to stop it.<< agreed - and the big play is the boomers want subsidized health care. like social security, people who can afford health care should pay for it and minimal taxes should be set aside for the poor (regardless of age) to help them get health care. but there are less votes in the reasonable approach as huge blocks of voters can't r*pe others for financial benefit in a reasonable plan.