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 (8143)	8/11/2009 2:46:25 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yet we still have what you call defensive medicine... and what others call over testing to make the most of an asset (an insured patient). Defensive medicine and milking an asset are two different things. If effective tort reform has occurred, there should be much less defensive medicine because one of the key needs for defense has been removed. But medical practitioners still have to defend themselves against loss of reputation, license, and customers so there will always be a certain amount of it. The reform plan encourages defensive medicine in its own way because of the oversight to be sure that practitioners meet the national standards, some of which will be unnecessary. Milking an asset is largely mercenary. There will always be a certain amount of that, too, because there will always be greedy people. Also, because medical equipment is expensive and requires lots of uses to cover the cost.

To: Road Walker who wrote (8143)	8/11/2009 3:53:05 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Yet we still have what you call defensive medicine... Habits change very slowly. Tort reform is the necessary first step. I think that perhaps crediting patients with a fraction of their unspent funding could encourage questions about the true necessity of tests being offered.

To: Road Walker who wrote (8143)	8/11/2009 5:06:30 PM
From: Little Joe	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

"Should be obvious. I think single payer, and to a lesser degree a public option will lower costs." This is what I don't understand. You live here. Time after time the government has started programs which supposedly were going to cost x and ended up costing x+ if were lucky. More often it is x times x. I saw an article which claimed that we are paying I believe 9 times the cost of the original estimate for medicare. It is almost unheard of for the government to do something on time and on budget. Yet you believe they will and what I can't understand is why. lj