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: DMaA who wrote (143278)	5/7/2001 1:30:49 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

DMA, I saw the flow chart which some Republican generated in an attempt to discredit the plan. If you made a flow chart of the current health care system, it would cover most of the state of Rhode Island. Scumbria

To: DMaA who wrote (143278)	5/7/2001 3:36:48 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 769667

DMA re:"I see advocacy of socialized medicine as a litmus test. Anyone in favor of it is a unrepentant socialist, and such, the enemy of freedom." So, may we assume you do not or will not accept Medicare and Social Security payments and that you think anyone who supports those programs or receives benefits from those programs are enemies of freedom?

To: DMaA who wrote (143278)	5/7/2001 4:06:15 PM
From: ThirdEye	Respond to of 769667

DMA: We are going to differ on the particulars, of course, but I don't think you have a full view of the medical issue. There are millions of people who don't have health insurance. But they do get sick and they do get care. I has been shown that the care they get costs more than the care they would have gotten if they had insurance. You may think that you don't pay for anyone else's health care now, but of course we all do in the form of taxes for county supported medical facilities. So, in a sense we already have "socialized" medicine. What you are calling socialized medicine is the definition promoted by the health insurance carriers who are only interested in shifting the cost and risk associated with coverage of uninsured people away from themselves and onto taxpayers as a whole. They would like to pick and choose who they insure in order to minimize their overall risk. In that sense they want to have their cake and eat it too. Health insurance coverage in our society has become, like electrical power in a way, a basic necessity of life. And like utilities are in some areas partially owned or even solely owned by municipalities, and even states may own some portions of the total power generating package and at the very least in most cases oversee the entities that supply power, so is not unreasonable for government to be involved in setting standards, evaluating delivery, pricing, allocation of resources, etc. for health care delivery. So the only question really is, which form of socialized medicine would you prefer? One that takes money out of one of your pockets while you help pay for the rest of the uninsured out of your other? Or a plan that might lower the overall costs of the entire system that might involve some government oversight? Now does that make me an enemy of freedom?