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 coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (21126)	7/2/2009 12:25:18 AM
From: axial	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71456

BW, what you're describing is very much like what we have in Canada. It's not what it used to be, not as embracing as it once was; mostly, that is a reflection of 2 things: [1] Declining standards of living in the US and Canada since the 50's [2] Efforts to pay down national debt, which has caused a drop in federal funding We have also been badly affected by a steady drain of doctors and nurses to your country, attracted by the opportunity to earn higher remuneration. So we pay a bundle to educate each one that leaves, but get nothing in return. In coming years, perhaps that situation will reverse. The system is far from perfect, but it's adequate - everywhere, people want it and vote to keep it. Even with its faults. There is freedom of choice for doctors, though in some rural communities, choices are limited. But that's true in the US, even now: in some places, you take the doctor you can get unless you can afford to maintain treatment at a better location. For many with chronic conditions, constant visits to places 200 miles away are not an option. Anybody is free to augment "basic" coverage, and many companies offer such benefits as employment incentives. Companies like the plan, because it's an expense they don't have to bear. Employees aren't forced to stay with jobs they hate, for fear of losing their plan. Government itself plays an active role in cost reduction, for instance on drugs: generics are specified and authorized to keep costs down. Americans have been taking "Prescription Trips" to Canada to obtain cheaper drugs for years, by busloads every day, every week. High net-worth individuals always have the option of travelling to whatever jurisdiction they want for additional service - Switzerland, the US, China - where sometimes advanced therapies are more readily available. So the rule is that those who have more money can pay for better treatment, and almost no waiting - but that's also true in the 'States. So nobody who's a "have" really loses, but the "have-nots" gain a lot. If it's done right, the cost of national health care can actually be reduced, while the population becomes healthier. On a comparative basis, some jurisdictions do better, others worse. Studies of different countries show varying degrees of success - the UK, New Zealand and Canada have a system where government pays the cost, even when performed by private institutions, while Germany, France and Japan use "mixed" systems: guaranteed health care but individual, company and government payment. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, - but the simple fact is that no matter where you go, health care is an expensive proposition. Social democracies have decided to share the cost burden equally among all, while providing a basic minimum of service, and national efforts to control costs. What's right? What the people want. Will everyone be happy? No, but the majority rules. Equally important, US health care costs - and entitlement programs - have become a ticking bomb. Jim