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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (9721)	2/18/2012 8:38:25 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

<<but other than that are you saying that the current system of emergency care can be cheaper, and provide better medical care, than switching to a Universal system? I was only saying that it could be cheaper, not better. I suppose it could also be better, not for the people getting that care, but for the set of all people, if the universal system discourages innovation or otherwise makes care worse for people who currently do get better care then those the poor uninsured. But "better" requires more things to work certain ways than "cheaper". Cheaper is IMO a much easier point to defend. Less care is likely cheaper.>> The above is an esoteric mainly irrelevant issue. The issue of prime importance is getting health care to everyone. The little kids and poor. Every other democracy has figured out how to do it but us e.g. a broken arm needs to be set and a person with an infection needs to be able to see a doc for treatment. First we just need to get basic medical care to everyone. If we need more docs, then we just need to build more medical schools. Plenty of willing and able students would like ot be docs, jsut not enough schools.