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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40444)	6/14/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Granting that the criticisms of nationalized health care are valid (though I have a Swedish friend who says the systems there works quite reasonably well), do you see any way of ensuring that people who are not insured or millionaires have access to reasonable quality health care? Do you think that people who can't afford care should simply be allowed to die off in the streets? Do you think the assumption that all patients are insured has anything to do with the skyrocketing costs of both health care and insurance? The US health care system is probably the best in the world, for those who are adequately insured. Does that make it the best in the world, period?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40444)	6/18/1999 11:45:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

I would agree with you that there are problems with nationalized health care in most of the countries that have it, Christopher. Although I hear that in northern European nations, where it is funded more adequately, it is pretty good. I was not really justifying the existence of nationalized health care when I made a comment about taxes being higher in England--that is just part of the reason that they pay them at a higher rate than we do. On the other hand, I think a system like America where the rich have good medical care, the poor have some kind of tax-paid coverage, and the rest of us have to scramble if our employers don't pay for it, or it is inadequate, or we are between jobs, is a really bad system. And with HMO's coming in and making health care worse at the same time that it is still inadequate and expensive, that doesn't really sound better than nationalized health care at all, where at least if it is your only choice, it is there for you. In fact, in the countries where nationalized care is not working, it is not the basic idea of it but not allocating enough resources to it that is causing the problem. I think that is MUCH easier solved than the horrible HMO care problems we have here now. And I am unclear how America could really have had the best care in the world, if it was only available to those who could afford it. It seems to me that in a world this wealthy, basic health care should be a right, not a privilege.