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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (489786)	6/22/2009 11:17:34 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1571808

>> Obama is pushing for cost reductions The only real "cost reductions" I've heard them talk about are (a) cuts in payments to providers, and (b) savings from implementing IT. Some would argue the "public option" is a savings feature, but there is no evidence to suggest this is true OTHER than the greater power to cut payments to providers (Medicare, for example, has essentially the same administrative cost as private insurance, when you adjust it to make it comparable to private insurance companies). So, you're going to save money by forcing providers to take less. Given we already have a shortage of providers, this results in what? Rationing based on availability. Who is going to become a physician when they can make more money with less effort doing something else (yes, there are those who want to become physicians because it is their dream to help others, but the reality is that it takes a lot of time and money to become a physician). As to the "savings" from IT, it is totally overstated. This is why Obama has had to PAY clinics to implement EMR. A typical office might require $40,000 up front and $10,000/year in ongoing costs. While lots of offices think it is way cool, the reality is that you cannot support it on a ROI basis at this time. Which is why the government is having to pay people to do it. (The government paying for EMR is sort of turning out to be a farce right now anyway, since most clinics are taking a wait-and-see attitude; they don't want to make any commitments right now until they see what is going to happen with health care reform over the next year or so).

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (489786)	6/22/2009 11:26:04 AM
From: SilentZ	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571808

>It is no coincidence that universal health care is being pushed right around the time the Baby Boomers are retiring. Huh? Yes it is. It's been pushed under every single Democratic administration since Truman, with the exceptions of Carter and (I think) Kennedy. It came close to passing under Truman and Clinton. We just have another Democrat in power now, and we also have a major health care cost crisis going on right now under the current system. Premiums are skyrocketing! The director of another organization I deal with told me that his organization's premiums are going up 30% this year! After 20% last year and an average of 18% the past few years. It's unsustainable, and it's time. Besides, that's counter logical. If anything, universal health care would be less of an issue because of the boomers retiring -- they're going to be covered under Medicare. They have their universal health care! -Z