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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (9661)	2/18/2012 11:19:06 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

BUTW: If the pool is large enough, and with universality it is, then you have enough healthy people to support taking care of the sick at reasonable rates Tim F: If your going to care for them, and push it through government force, you might as well just make it a government program, rather than force insurance companies to cover them, and force people to get insurance. That last point is constitutionally dubious. That doesn't only raise the possibility of being struck down, it also raises the point that if it isn't struck down you've allowed the government once again to push past is constitutional limitations. BUTW: Let's assume for the sake of this argument the universal system passes legal muster. I know it's 50/50 proposition right now given the way different circuits have ruled. I want it be a government run program like Medicare, but with higher deductibles and incentives for cost efficiencies. Medicare on steroids if you will. I don't know how else to cover everyone and not have the poor rely on the emergency room which results in poorer treatment and the same higher bills for the rest of us. BUTW: It's a function of the universality AND a government subsidy if you are un or underemployed. TIM F: Government subsidies don't reduce cost, in fact they often increase costs, it just puts the cost on someone else. BUTW: BUT we are subsidizing it now anyway thru the higher charges of hospitals to insurance companies (passed thru to us or are in employers in the premiums) to carry the free care they provide in the emergency room. Shifting it to the government will just smooth out this subsidy assuming we can implement efficiencies and get the consumer to shop thru incentives. I'm not saying there won't be some bumps in the road. And, yes, there will have to be some limitations on what is covered (otherwise we can't afford to cover everyone), but private individuals that have the means will/should be allowed to purchase care on the global market. Is this socializing medicine? Yup, I think it is, but for me I think I think it addresses the gaping holes in our present system better than going forward with the present system. (I happen to think we should also socialize medical education and take some of the debt burden off young Drs. in return for them serving in under served areas for a certain number of years.) I'm not up on Paul Ryan's plan. Those of you who think it is better make your case.