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 (11070)	11/5/2009 8:50:11 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Assuming that he's correct, though, that the critical difference is coverage, then why aren't we taking a straight line to getting universal coverage? And why are we making changes that would damage our best-in-the-world health care? Taking the "best in class" part as fact, I think the answer would be that our system is so expensive we can't afford universal care; in fact can't afford our current non-universal system going forward, given the demographics. The proposed legislation is intended (effective or not as a separate argument) to both lower/contain costs and expand coverage.

To: Lane3 who wrote (11070)	11/5/2009 9:10:05 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback." I've seen words to this effect before. As you point out, if it is true, there could be numerous reasons WHY it is true. But I think you're on to the real explanation: The high-risk behavior slows, and the effect of having the best health care available anywhere kicks in. He shot himself in the foot with this argument. Whoever he is.