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 (12714)	12/25/2009 11:19:57 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>>> You're letting your animus toward the government decision makers get in the way. It isn't "in the way", it is the core of this particular issue. I accept that some rationing is necessary. I don't accept that all 90 year-olds are unworthy of expensive treatments due to their age, or even most of them. And I believe government, or anyone within government, is both incompetent and too detached from the reality of the situation to make the kinds of decisions you mentioned. I think there are definitely tests & procedures & drugs, like a screening colonoscopy, that government can and should say, "We'll pay for one every x years for a male aged nn unless certain conditions exist". These are policy decisions about which I have no disagreement. But where it comes to procedures/treatments that require complex evaluation of prognosis, quality of life, or risk to the patient, that decision must be within the purview of physicians only and the government ought to stay out of it. The problem, Lane, with government getting involved in these issues is that there is no recourse for an incorrect decision. The simple truth is that with 300M or more residents, government facilities for proper evaluation of these issues cannot handle the workload while delivering a reasonable quality of care. Because they involve a significant expenditure of time to judge each case. Insurance companies can do a far better job of this than government, just because of the numbers involved. Yet, people don't find THAT acceptable, either. Maybe there has to be some way to provide incentives for making the right call, but I have no doubt that government is the wrong entity for doing it.