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: garrettjax who wrote (479493)	3/29/2012 9:19:27 PM
From: skinowski	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793568

I continue to stand by my dual contentions that competition is the way to improve healthcare and reduce its cost Agree, without a doubt. Regrettably, as I mentioned (I think) recently in a different context, American healthcare is becoming the land of Triumphant Socialism. This is not a good thing for any of us. We don't need more regulation and more bureaucrats -- we need to see more market forces in play. Still don't understand why information about medical procedure costs/charges can't be more widely available to everyone. Many years ago, back in the late 70's - early 80's, the "logic" behind the government's taboo against publishing prices was that it could lead to "collusion" between doctors, and higher overall fee rates. It was BS then and it is even more so now. Unless there is an insane shortage of doctors, competition would lead to lower rates. Competition is needed not only among docs, but among hospitals and other providers as well. After all, all docs combined get probably about 10% of the healthcare dollars, if not less - and that covers their overhead. Saying that healthcare costs can be meaningfully lowered solely by cutting doc's fees is pure demagoguery.