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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (449070)	10/4/2011 10:13:47 AM
From: goldworldnet	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794011

Agreed... A bare bones system would be better than doing all uninsured care in the emergency room. * * *

To: skinowski who wrote (449070)	10/4/2011 10:16:16 AM
From: ManyMoose	3 Recommendations Respond to of 794011

Yesterday in a doctor's office I saw a poster with a diagram of some 200 departments, agencies, or offices that medical care would have to pass through. Nowhere in that diagram did I see 'Patient.' I was glad to see doctors speaking up. People just don't get it.

To: skinowski who wrote (449070)	10/4/2011 10:22:01 AM
From: D. Long	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794011

Yes, the choice IS government or more government, I'm afraid. That is, unless you are willing to watch people die in the street without help - because they failed to purchase insurance That is just another false alternative. Either people get all medical care, or they get none and people will be "dying in the streets." What ever did people do before the middle of the last century and government intervention in healthcare? They must have been dropping like flies. They lived to be 60 instead of 80. Well, I'm in the camp that doesn't believe society should be a cash cow to guarantee that extra 20 years for people who made poor choices in life and didn't get insurance or don't have the cash to pay out of pocket.

To: skinowski who wrote (449070)	10/4/2011 10:25:17 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794011

I'm thinking - the answer is in having a simple, cheap safety net paid for by the public -- meaning things like limits on use of expensive meds, limited access to doctors, with most care provided by residents and other trainees, wards rather than semiprivate or private hospital rooms, and so forth. Long waits, too. In other words, this adds up to creating a somewhat lower standard of care - as opposed to the current situation, when everyone is expected to be treated the same. This would be a fairly profound change... but the current system is unsustainable. It would have to be unattractive, as welfare should be.... it should make people want to earn more money and to be able to purchase insurance. i think it is important to distinguish between those who truly cannot afford coverage and those who willfully choose not to purchase even minimal coverage... obviously, hospitals are required to treat patients if they present, so i think one other piece of the puzzle is to have gov't reimburse the hospital for the coverage given, and then, go after the patient for collection, garnishing wages if necessary, if he has the ability to pay....that policy alone would prompt individuals to maintain some type of coverage....the moral hazard part of our current policies would be eliminated and you would get voluntary compliance