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: truedog who wrote (2632)	7/30/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

truedog if you have a link for that, about the elderly can you post it? I have heard the opposite, that the elderly are something like #2 in terms of net worth as a group in the US. If that is incorrect I will certainly retract my opinions on the matter. Just as a cursory observation, however, anybody over 65 has medicare, whereas tons of people under 65 don't have health insurance and have no way of getting it, meanwhile they are subsidizing the elderly and their medicare payments. I think there is something ethically wrong with that... why should one group who is not guaranteed health insurance have to pay another group so that they are insured? Personally I favor taking better care of all poor, myself. I would do away with welfare and SS/medicare and replace it with a general system that covered everybody that needed it. I would raise the payments to a reasonable level so that those falling out of the system today (those on welfare) could live dignified lives where imo they cannot now. But he SS recipients that didn't need their benefits wouldn't get them in my world (well, they would get what they paid in with a reasonable interest rate but no Cola, etc). That would be my ideal.