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: i-node who wrote (18363)	7/15/2010 3:34:05 PM
From: dybdahl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Measuring outcomes is what makes socialised systems allocate resources based on ROI, but unfortunately, larger investments usually involve decisions from politicians... so while the scale is larger, private initiative is rarely rewarded. This is why European countries with socialised health care systems try to keep a part of the health care sector on private hands. Denmark once had a 100% socialised health care system, and that was not a success, so we will probably never see that again.

To: i-node who wrote (18363)	7/18/2010 3:52:31 PM
From: dybdahl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Return on invested capital is a far better allocator of resources, IMO. Even with its problems." ROI is a great resource allocator, when you want an efficient mechanism that provides exactly what the consumers wants to buy. The big problem in health care is, that modern health care can do much more than what an informed consumer can buy. ROI works absolutely perfectly for boob jobs, but not for buying diagnoses or treatments for unprecise/unknown diagnoses. Nobody has provided a good answer to this simple question: Where do you buy good health?