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: SilentZ who wrote (505160)	8/16/2009 1:08:29 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1579086

Of course there is. Bad teeth and gums run in my family. My mom needed thousands of dollars of periodontal work by the time she was my age. I pay to go to the dentist every three months for cleanings to make sure that doesn't happen to me. When I was going every six months, my teeth would be notably worse by the time I got to my visit. Hasn't been happening since I've been going every three. But I can afford it. My insurance covers two visits per year and I pay for two. But many people can't afford that sort of thing. Even THIS isn't a very good example. If you paid for preventive care for EVERYONE -- 4 visits/yr versus 2, only a few would be saved the gum disease later on. It is cheaper to pay for periodontal work later. The problem with the preventive care argument as a cost savings measure is that you can't identify those for whom it is a worthwhile investment. If you can identify those who will benefit from preventive procedures, like more frequent screenings for colon cancer, great. But that is though to do. So, you end up screening a huge number of people who do not benefit from it. There is not any argument amongst informed persons about this subject. It is agreed by those who know WTF they're talking about that you cannot save money, at this time, with preventive care that isn't highly targeted. And the targeting isn't possible for most potential problems. It is a bullshit argument. One of many.

To: SilentZ who wrote (505160)	8/16/2009 1:23:42 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579086

Z, > Your premium gets too high? Join the public plan. Insurance company limits your choice of doctors/tests/drugs? Join the public plan. Who pays for the public plan? Obama is going to tax private health insurance, the uninsured who chooses to be that way, and anyone else he thinks can "afford" higher taxes. That's not keeping the private companies "honest." That's turning single-payer health care into a self-fulfilling prophesy. > Of course there is. The prevention is going to cost more than what is being "prevented." It's been pointed out many times. The issue here is quality of health care, not cost savings. Preventative care is and should be a part of any health insurance plan. But it's foolish to associate that with cutting costs. The only way you can cut costs is by rationing, which is what every industrialized country with universal health care has to do. Tenchusatsu