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: Alighieri who wrote (13998)	3/5/2010 4:39:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

How? How what? I didn't assert any specific outcome, I didn't say "it would decrease costs by decreasing responsiveness", or something like that. I said it could contain costs, but if it does something else (responsiveness, quantity, quality) would have to give. Essentially I'm saying I see no reason to think that the system's efficiency will increase, that if we actually spend less (which I don't think we will) that we will get less. If your asserting we will spend less and get more, than its up to you to show how. In fact one could argue that the most promising aspects of it are preventive in nature... No currently being done (at least in terms of preventive health care), even in fairly small scales, and for the most covered and/or wealthiest people who could get any preventive care they wanted, shows a lot of promise in terms of reducing obesity. Obesity's seems to have leveled off, but I would submit "preventive care" has little to do with that, and also leveling off isn't the same as decreasing.