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 (130)	6/17/1999 4:38:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Tom, Insurance companies get a lot less than you seem to think. Several years ago my nephew recieved a liver transplant (so far he is doing fine) and had insurance cover more than our whole family has or will ever pay in premiums. I glady write that check every three months, knowing that if I get sick I will be taken care of as well as can be done. In Britain, Canada and the other wonderful countries you wish to emulate, people are waiting in line for Cancer therapy, heart surgery, cataract operations, etc., etc., doctors, nurses, et al. are in tight supply partly because they can make as much or more money in much less stressful jobs. Unemployment is higher because taxes are higher to pay for it all. The poor get free overused, overextended, mediocre healthcare but can't find a job. I would rather give them a chance at a job than free health care, especially since it ain't free to me, I get to pay for mine and their's too under your plan.

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (130)	6/17/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 769667

You (or your company) are already paying plenty for health care. Only it goes to an insurance company first, which takes its cut (huge!) before passing it along to health care providers. Why not pay the same amount (in taxes), cut out the for-profit middleman, and distribute the larger net? Great idea! But the insurance industry and their *@#)$&!#($&# lobbysts won't stand for it.

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (130)	8/6/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769667

You don't have to look at very many government programs to realize that the cut Government would take for it's benevolent money shufflers, would be much greater than the insurance companies will EVER take. Dan B

To: Dr. Stoxx who wrote (130)	8/6/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You're also leaving out the higher prices that are charged private purchasers of health care services and products since Medicare mandates that they be charged much less, usually about 20 percent less and on some services, as much as 50 percent. Hillary's plan called for 8 1/2 percent payroll tax. This likely would have exceeded 10 percent before long. With Social Security's "surplus" being a pipe dream, it would not be long before payroll taxes would exceed 25 percent.