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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (122)	6/17/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: truedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

to: Thomas Carr from: truedog Re: health care Hey TC...Don't you realize that the bleeding hearted liberals are too busy spending American tax dollars on illegal foreign wars to care about the needy people back home? Also, when any program is administered by the federal government, only about $.30 of each dollar ever reaches those who need it. Unfortunately this is true of whatever party is in charge of the white house. The psycophants that perpetuate these agencies will always be ready to find some way to save their vastly over-paid jobs and make themselves feel important. If these inept, inefficient toadies could be fired, maybe some progress could be made in streamlining the processes of government. truedog

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (122)	6/17/1999 4:05:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Tom, re > I consider it a moral crime that, with all its wealth, America still fails to provide adequate healthcare for its neediest citizens...< What about the "moral crime" of taking my hard earned money at the point of a gun (i.e. taxes) to pay for it? Or do you advocate forcing doctors, nurses, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, et al. to provide their services and goods for free?

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (122)	6/17/1999 5:21:00 PM
From: John Ficquette	Respond to of 769667

Tom, Public assistance is not the answer. The money spent never ends up going to those who need it. It would be much better if concerned people like yourself simply adopted a family and paid for their insurance. They would very much like that. In addition, you would be setting a fine example for others to do the same.

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (122)	6/17/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It's not from lack of spending. Clinton signed off on using non-Medicare funds to pay for 10 percent of Medicare expenditures. Screw Social Security at the expense of Medicare. They also expand these programs each year so that the expense grows beyond the rate of medical inflation. This also doesn't take into account the large amount of cost-shifting from Medicare patients to private payors since many health care providers charge more to non-Medicare patients to make up the difference.