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 (7884)	7/30/2009 8:50:37 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 42652

You haven't seen it because it isn't radical enough for you and actually addresses the problems. ... Here's a republican plan. What do you know about it? Nothing. It hasn't been released yet... how am I supposed to know anything about it? Where have they been?

To: i-node who wrote (7884)	7/30/2009 8:58:52 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

These people, R&D alike, are spending like drunken sailors. On the way into work I was listening to the head of PhRMA which represents most of the drug companies explaining their support of the Obama bill. The AMA, as conservative as you get, has endorsed the Obama bill. The all say the same thing... we're heading for a train wreck and doing nothing is no longer an option. Continuing the current system is the worst case scenario. The major players all agree. Methinks the people who are desperately opposed to change are being motivated by politics or ideology; they don't want to give the democrats/liberals "a win". The "just say no" folks are backing the worst option; the status quo.

To: i-node who wrote (7884)	7/30/2009 9:21:16 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

WRT tort reform. I think no one who ignores it can be serious about healthcare reform. People publish ridiculously low estimates of the costs of "defensive medicine". Ask any hospital based doctor what percentage of admissions are so called "soft" admissions? Those are cases when the patient doesn't really need to be in the hospital, but the ER doc and the admitting doc take them in - because it is "safer" this way - meaning, less chances to get hit by a lawsuit - in the remote case when something actually does go wrong with that patient, even for unrelated reasons. ER docs cannot take ANY risk on behalf of a patient - so, why should they? They'll "work up" every case at considerable cost, and they'll admit most who want to be admitted - at several thousand bucks a pop.