Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices 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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: combjelly who wrote (613248)	5/27/2011 12:36:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1576649

Your playing burden of proof games. Your right unless the other side can prove your wrong. That's unreasonable. There is no way to prove either side of this, but prices rise with increasing demand (expressed in dollars or other medium of exchange). Yes supply also rises in response to the higher prices bringing them back down, but prices can't rise to levels higher than what people will pay for the good or service. Euthanasia as a way to solve our debt problem. Its also irrelevant to the question at hand, but nice try. Not giving a blank check to cover all medical expenses is not euthanasia, even passively. Also giving a blank check isn't going to happen anyway. Measures are going to be taken to contain costs. Its a choice between market based measures like in Ryan's plan, or command and control based measures like many Democrats are pushing. ----------- Morality and Medicare Arnold Kling M.S. writes (for the Economist blog), Mr Ryan's plan ends the guarantee that all American seniors will have health insurance. The Medicare system we've had in place for the past 45 years promises that once you reach 65, you will be covered by a government-financed health-insurance plan. The key word here is promises. There is essentially zero chance that the government will keep its current promises. The author concludes, I agree with Mr Ryan that the government needs to limit taxpayers' exposure to Medicare cost inflation. I think this plan is a fundamentally immoral way to do it. Baloney sandwich. The term "cost inflation" means a pure increase in prices charged for the same services. Some of that takes place. But most of the rise in health care spending reflects increased use of expensive inputs, in particular fancy equipment and medical specialists. There are always three ways to deal with the increased usage of premium medicine. a) have government experts ration medical services b) give consumers fixed amounts of money based on income and medical condition, and having them make their own decisions c) tell people that neither (a) nor (b) is necessary Remember that what everybody wants for themselves is unlimited access to medical services without having to pay for them. So the politics of health care push in the direction of (c). I am always ready to have the debate between (a) and (b). But instead, politicians and pundits attack (b) with (c). That is fundamentally immoral. econlog.econlib.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next