View from the Center and Left Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sawdusty who wrote (64690)	5/9/2008 2:55:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 542941

I agree with Steve, irrelevant imo. I think it's very relevant. Please explain why it isn't? Here's why I think it is. "I would not live under a system where one could lose everything they had worked their life for, due to an unfortunate and unexpected illness." Let me paraphrase. You think that the taxpayers should indemnify the citizenry against the ruinous impact of medical bills, that it is intolerable not to do so. So curious minds want to know what is so special about that particular cause of ruin. Hence the question, what differentiates that particular ruin as opposed from other ruins. Victims of other "unfortunate and unexpected" events can lose everything, yet the taxpayers don't indemnify them. If someone loses his business, his savings, his means of making a living to a crime or act of god or accident or whatever, the taxpayers don't indemnify the victim. Why is it tolerable to live in such a country yet not in one that doesn't indemnify against equivalent ruin due to illness? I ask that question every opportunity I get. I want to understand why indemnify health care but not other equally devastating losses. Will you tell me?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next