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: Lane3 who wrote (8581)	8/21/2009 4:42:07 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

My general argument is that the current system is far imbalanced away for public health and prevention. Private health insurance co's do not have much incentive to do broad population based measures to improve health, and so the responsibility for healthy eating campaigns, smoking cessation, infant car seat promotion,the alcohol related injury prevention stuff I've been posting falls on the government. The ROI on these interventions is great for the country. I agree that prevention and screening has to be based on science, not just guesses, but a lot of prevention stuff isn't being done that should. A better system would tilt more toward government promotion of health based on science and less towards satisfying the immediate wishes of the consumer (gasp!). Surgery is dramatic and compelling, but the more mundane answer might be physical therapy (I'm thinking of lower back pain). Nevertheless, private insurers do not deny surgery coverage even when the benefits are marginal because they know how angry scared people can get.