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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (130329)	2/6/2010 12:31:35 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542007

Since the UK spends far less on health care than we do, I'm not sure why that system isn't more feasible: en.wikipedia.org Because if you can't afford your health spending, that does make it unfeasible- and I think, looking at the above graph, it is clear our spending is unsustainable. But if everyone wants granny to spend a fortune in the last few months of her life, while she is hooked up to all sorts of machinery to give her everything her health insurance will cover, that's what we get. You need rationing (which we have, of course- but ours is based on the insurance companies needs, and to a lesser extent on what health care providers want to do). Me, I prefer any other system used by the 1st world nations.

To: Lane3 who wrote (130329)	2/7/2010 5:09:35 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542007

>>As for competition, there are pros and cons. Competitive and non-competitive models are so utterly different. It would take more sophisticated modeling than I can manage to lay out and weigh both sides. However I am unable to conceive of a model without competition that would likely be viable long term.<< You can't conceive of a non-competitive model that would be viable long term? Do the real-world examples of all the non-competitive models that have been working for decades in other countries not count for some reason?