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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (32638)	6/19/2002 11:09:07 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi John, The national healthcare issue is always a challenging one to discuss. I think it's fundamentally important to distinguish the basic premise from where we all have formed distinct opinions. And at the core of the issue is whether we believe healthcare, for all, is an inalienable right or a privilege? And if we should decide healthcare is a right, does a right to basic medical care (i.e. immunizations, pre-natal check-ups, etc.) equate to a right to have boob or nose job? Where do we draw the line and who should decide? And, of course, healthcare is extremely expensive and everyone wants the most recent and sophisticated tests and equipment at their disposal. So who's to pay for all of this? And would making blanket political promises really solve our healthcare problems or just bankrupt a national healthcare system in the same manner that social security is such a disaster? Just food for thoughts....

To: JohnM who wrote (32638)	6/19/2002 11:12:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Changing the subject I am not changing the subject, John, you are. We are talking about changing our medical system to a Socialist system and I am telling you why it will be a disaster. Yes, I have moral problems with it. You want a Medical PHD to give up his freedom and become a slave for the State. That is what he is in a National Health scheme. I say that it is immoral for you to force him into slavery. That is why Doctors all over the world run from them if they can. And work at the lowest level possible if forced to stay in that type of system. We have just spent the last century proving that slavery doesn't result in productivity. Talk to Canadians who come over the border for health care. And can't get kidney dialysis, and other "optional" treatments if they don't fit the medical "profile" that the bureaucrats have set up. Or get told to get in line for a several year wait. The degree to which health could be improved by a decent supply of preventive medicine with enough government incentives to attract a decent quality of practicioner is incalculable. This has been tried all over the world, and failed. Doing it is a "Fairy Tale", and the cost to do it is what is incalculable. When Medical care is "Free" everybody expects to receive medical treatment at a "Boutique" level. If just can't happen. The one major stat that is usually trotted out by the Socialists when they are trying to sell this boondoggle is pre-natal care and survival of newborns. The first issue is a cultural one. The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about is the inability of clinics in this country to get minority women to come in for pre-natal even when it is offered free. The second issue, survival of newborns, is complicated by the failure, for cultural reasons, of pre-natal, and the fact that we try to save a lot of "premees" that die and get counted on the stats. Other countries don't bother to try to save them, they can't afford to with the cost of their Socialist Medical system. They let them die, and count as an abort.