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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (237307)	11/9/2013 2:36:01 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

Excellent post. You should also add that other countries who respond collectively have done so for significantly cheaper than what we pay for our system. Also that their systems make access more equitable, and as a result richer individuals get poorer outcomes than they might in our system. We can't seem to reconcile and accept this.

To: epicure who wrote (237307)	11/9/2013 2:43:02 PM
From: Crony	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

First we have to accept that the problem exists. All resources are limited and health care is no exception. There are two ways to get closer to that ideal situation: you either pay extra and that money is used to produce more resources (economics 101) or you ration what you currently have. Many liberals won't accept this and they believe in fairy tales about everyone deserving the best. Second we have to accept a simple fact that people do die and very often it is impractical to spend huge amount of limited resources when the result is minimal. To do this humanely you just let people decide what level of coverage they want. So if they want the best care regardless of age - they should pay more. And if someone makes mistakes - well, so be it. It doesn't mean they will be denied treatment - it means their treatment will be a cheaper alternative based on their age. So yes, there should be some kind of actuarial tables that would allocate resources most efficient. Same treatment can be denied to 70 yo, but surely will be allowed for 30 yo. Single payer system doesn't allocate resources efficiently and it would lead to great decrease of innovations and new treatments which would lead to even more rationing. As all socialist programs do. When there is no incentive (money) to create something - less and less will be created and quality would go down.

To: epicure who wrote (237307)	11/9/2013 7:34:28 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541791

>> What if they don't have the money for even minimal care. I am in favor of government coverage of a minimal care defined as care that affects other people. This includes vaccination, pregnancy and delivery (to a point), drug rehab, communicable diseases, etc. But that is all. I am open to the idea that on humanitarian grounds, a moderate level of health care could be provided to those who cannot afford it. Anything more is not very justifiable. ST