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: Road Walker who wrote (7963)	7/31/2009 2:54:10 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> The Euro systems are about 1/2 the price. All of them. It just works. LOL. This is called arguing with the facts.

To: Road Walker who wrote (7963)	8/13/2009 6:29:05 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I understand that the best of them are more like "30 to 40% off" than half the price. And then you have to consider how much of the "discount" is from factors that wouldn't apply from implementing a system that congress would pass, or even as exact of copy of their insurance system as possible. You could even drop the "as possible" and magically make the insurance system identical (other than the fact that it serves a different and larger population) and its questionable that we would save anywhere near the whole difference.

To: Road Walker who wrote (7963)	8/14/2009 7:20:40 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yes I have, many times. Evidence based. The Euro systems are about 1/2 the price. All of them. It just works. Sigh! Just when I think you have started operating off of your brain system rather than your belief system you go and ruin it by posting something like that. Dunno whether that's recidivism on your part or false expectation on my part... <g>

To: Road Walker who wrote (7963)	8/17/2009 9:56:42 AM
From: Lane3	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I guess that enough time has passed that you would have responded to my flip remark by now if you were going to. Fair enough. So I will take a more constructive tack and explain why I perceive a lack of a cogent argument on your part. Your explanation for your position is that the Euro system costs half what ours does and that's good enough for you. At least you didn't repeat the fiction that it produces better results for half the cost. That has been pretty thoroughly debunked, methinks. Anyway, I'll address the cost issue with an analogy. (I do that with some trepidation. <g>) The US spends way, way less than the Swiss per capita on skiing. What can you reasonably conclude from that factoid about the value, quality, satisfaction, efficacy, etc. re skiing in the two countries? The answer is "absolutely nothing." Could you make a cogent argument for the Swiss to change their skiing system based upon our lower per-capita spending? The Swiss also spend more per capita on food. What can you reasonably conclude from that factoid about the value, quality, satisfaction, efficacy, etc. re food in the two countries? Again, nothing. Surely you wouldn't argue for the Swiss to change their food system based upon our lower per-capita spending. So why is the lower health care cost in Europe enough to warrant our changing our health care system to emulate theirs? How could that possibly be considered a cogent argument?