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: Lane3 who wrote (24241)	7/18/2012 11:10:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> It's obvious that one way for a government to increase access to health care while reducing prices is to control prices I get you but I'm not sure it is that obvious. Even with half the health care economy price controlled today, we have an alarming increase in the number of providers jumping ship on government health care payments. Will it actually increase access if there are fewer providers and more people with government backed payments to pay them? I think not. As I've pointed out before, it is very easy to show that Medicare payments do not cover the cost of providing services. Without private supplements, it would be utterly impossible to find providers in some areas who would take Medicare. I heard a doctor on the Huckabee show last week talking about how her friend had told her she was thinking of going into medicine, and how she [the doctor] persuaded her against it, by telling her, "You'll spend your life working for the government. Don't do it." The girl ended up going into engineering instead. In reality, a better answer might have been, "Choose your specialty carefully. Go into pediatrics or cosmetic surgery, and more importantly, go set up shop in Highland Park or somewhere where there is money.