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 (16123)	4/5/2010 8:59:52 AM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If you do more stuff because you add people and increase coverage, more money gets spent on health care than would otherwise have been spent. We are missing each other on the key point which is my belief that everyone needs to be covered properly. And then how best to do that. Single payer in my opinion is the key to cost containment. In fact I am certain that it is the only course of action that would save money. Insurance profits, admin costs, the profits of the health care industry, best practices, uniformity and continuity, unified records...all in fair play with single payer. Even if the controls were more stringent under the PO, and we have no evidence to support that, the savings would be at the margins. You have numbers from the CBO...vs your arbitrary and, yes, fanciful, logic. If you want to argue that despite increasing numbers of insured there would be less stuff done, I will give your rationale a fair look. I don't recall ever arguing this. But you're telling me that you would be saving money by buying for yourself ten extra pairs of skis because they're on sale. You wouldn't. You'd be out the sale cost of ten pairs of skis. Stop the silly analogies. Al