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: Brumar89 who wrote (8703)	8/26/2009 3:13:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OK. I'm understanding you to say that you trust the doctors and patients and whatever they ask for should be paid out of common funds. its being done now by insurance companies is imo not true.Neither "bioethicists" or economists should be involved in making health care decisions for people. Patients, families, and doctors should do that. I can't argue with that on principle. That's the way it should be. But on a practical level I can. Any scarce resource held in common requires rationing or it will be depleted. It happens everywhere. Parks have someone rationing softball diamonds and picnic tables. Conversely, no one has managed our fisheries and now our fish are being depleted. If someone brings a batch of cookies into the office either someone has to ration them or the first people in will eat them all and latecomers will get none. This is economics 101 and all your faith in doctors and patients can't trump the laws of economics. The only way to keep bioethicists and economics out of it is for each of us to pay his own medical bills. Sure, Taxol for a cold is an absurd scenario, but if you're testing a principle, that's how you do it. If you really, really want your pooled resource manager to pay all claims, then you have to accept that if some idiot prescribes Taxol for a cold you will pay it. If you balk at paying it then you're tacitly accepting rationing. The only thing left to determine is the standards for paying and denying. its being done now by insurance companies is imo not true. I am very confused by that. We have had many discussions on this very thread about tests and treatments that are/were not covered. If you insist that everything is now covered, we have no basis for discussion.