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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (775693)	3/19/2014 3:27:24 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578666

>> Just like it has happened in every country it has been tried. Well, single payer is a mess in most substantial countries it has been used in. And there is not one country that comes close to the level of innovation in health care the US has been responsible for over the years (until Obamacare, at least). The US has easily been responsible for over half of ALL health care innovation in the last fifty years. By moving the US to single payer you're going to have universally bad care, which I think most people in this country have the gumption to recognize. Single Payer is a mess all over the world, but the important point is that it cannot work in the US. Medicare tells us why: Our government is incapable of efficiently running such an operation. To try and compare it with the government of some Nordic country with 5 million population is silly; these are two entirely different concepts in payment systems. Single payer cannot work in the US because the bureaucracy required to run it would result in thrashing like none the world has ever seen. Our nation cannot even competently run single payer for the over-65 population (it really isn't single payer, since Medicare would be totally infeasible without the subsidies from supplements, but that's beside the point -- it is the closest thing we've ever had). It certainly couldn't handle a multiple of the membership with a far broader demographic base. No person who understands our system of health care finance would suggest it.