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: Road Walker who wrote (11338)	11/16/2009 2:59:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I'm confused... you are talking about trend not the fixed "grade" for a country. I'm not talking about the trend itself but rather the fixed grade at one point than the fixed grade at another. It forms an analogy with the fixed grade in different countries. If the trend idea still confuses you, it can be changed to different countries rather than a change in one. For the sake of simplification, assume the following two countries have a lump of undifferentiated rich people and a lump of undifferentiated poor people. (All rich and all poor in either country have the same income as all other rich and all other poor, and within the same country they have identical health care). Also assume the rich and poor make up the same percentage of each countries population. Country A, has a score of 2.2 for poor people, and 100 for rich people. Country B has a score of 2 for poor people, and 10 for rich people. Country A take a big relative hit in the comparison because of its higher inequality, and if the number of rich people is very small (so that the large improvement for the rich doesn't improve the overall score too much), WHO would probably score country B higher than country A, since A is less equal. But in country A, every single poor person, and every single rich person, has better health care than their equivalents in B. My point is count the results for the poor, but don't also add in a measurement of equality and add that measurement. The fact that the rich have it better in country A, than the rich in country B, shouldn't hurt country A's score relative to B.

To: Road Walker who wrote (11338)	11/16/2009 3:30:33 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> Again we may very well have the VERY BEST health system in the world for a very limited number of people. Of course we do, but the number isn't that limited. Out of 306 Million Americans, roughly 5%, or 15 Million, don't have insurance for some reason other than just preferring to spend the money on partying. That means 95% have access the VERY BEST health care in the world. 95% is not a "very limited" number of people. It is almost all. Even in countries where there is socialized medicine they are not able to cover 100% (more like 98%). So, the difference is marginal and could easily be solved without gutting the "VERY BEST HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE WORLD".