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 (9497)	9/14/2009 6:13:57 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Something has to be at least somewhat plausible before I get exercised over it. No doubt you believe that, but I'd say it's debatable. I'm schooled in basic risk assessment and am a rational person so I tend to base my fears on the actual threat level, which is a function of not just the extent of deleterious effect but the probability of occurrence. Let me demonstrate by way of a recent example how the abovementioned is not always the case. For ex. you said, quite emphatically I might add…that... The question on the table is how the person dying "from old age" saves health care dollars over the the person who dies early. I stumbled on this thread and your post whilst looking for something else, this kind of stopped me dead in my tracks though, I have to disagree with it in the strongest possible terms. What makes you think that’s the question when it’s actually totally besides the point, an argument for a conclusion that’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, aka a red herring. For starters I’d say that it’s not the kind of question that leads to any sort of meaningful knowledge, because it’s premise is less than useful in the real world. The practical implications of the dying early option are not even a remotely viable proposition from any sort of political, medical or social pov. We are simply not going to let people die early, do nothing or go for lowest cost or most savings. Why. Because the metric used in healthcare is value, not cost, so the question is false to begin with. In general about 20% of medical services save money and 60% are seen to provide reasonable value. These ratios are similar whether the care is what you're calling preventative or regular. Much of prevention goes unstudied so many measures have not yet been tested. Of course if we do more procedures it’s going to cost more, but besides that obvious point your formulation does not correspond to any reality that I am aware of. Since you posed it, perhaps you could enlighten us as to it’s further practical utility. The do nothing option implied in your question does not exist, so why assert it. If it’s not a do nothing option plse explain what you mean by dying early, like how would you best achieve this. I am trying to figure out what benefit accrues from your apparent insight into this non-existent situation. For ex. where is this stark option, who is putting it out there, who’s table is it on.

To: Lane3 who wrote (9497)	9/15/2009 9:26:23 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Your judgement is clouded by your trust in government. You would do well to remember that the Obama / Pelosi Administration is rabidly radical. They are attempting to destroy America in so many ways simultaneously. a law might be passed to require everyone to eat newt eggs every other Thursday at midnight. Earth to That is totally irrelevant to the subject. The path that the Pelosi / Obama Administration has chosen to steer us on in the Healthcare Takeover would cause massive irreparable harm to the American medical system. Obviously this would cause irreparable harm to the American way of life. As I wrote, it would cause a medical provider shortage. It is not a matter of plausibility, it is probable.