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: dybdahl who wrote (18914)	8/23/2010 3:04:23 AM
From: dybdahl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Patients with strange diseases are hit economically, in Denmark's socialised health system: politiken.dk (use Google Translate) The Danish law about sick leave money says, that you cannot get more sick-leave money after 52 weeks, if there is no diagnose. This means, that after 52 weeks, the patient is transferred to the social help system, where the money is significantly less, if there is no diagnose. However, if the patient lives in a marriage with a certain minimum amount, or has a fortunate (cash or a house), no money is given. However, with arthritis, there are sometimes very complex diagnoses where it takes more than a year to set the correct diagnose, so this means that some patients get into financial problems, and may end up selling their house. The problem now affects 0.2% of the population each year. Communes have previously been more flexible with the requirement for diagnose on arthritis patients, but since the financial crisis, they have required the diagnose, so the problem is increasing. The Danish health care minister answered, that she does not want to remove the 52 week limit.

To: dybdahl who wrote (18914)	8/23/2010 7:10:31 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yes, all such statistical studies are based on averages, and cannot be directly applied to individuals..... But I love it how counterintuitive the findings can be. Yes, healthcare for a healthy population would be, in sum, more costly. It also illustrates once again how politicians and social engineers can talk stuff about which they have no darn clue - and which can't even guesstimate properly. Being a clueless idiot never stops a politician from "acting" - aka, spending more of the public's money. edit - btw, is that study available on the Net? Maybe with a summary in English? Tx.