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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (137)	1/14/2005 9:16:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

As the 2 systems stand currently, Canadian system is still far cheaper than the American system on a day to day basis. Not surprising when you consider the American subsidy for Canadian drugs, plus the waiting lists, and other factors. You think having 40- 50 million people with out health insurance is freedom? Yes. Forcing people to pay for other people's medical care reduces freedom. It can be argued that its worth it, that the overall net benefit to society is worth the loss of freedom but the loss should be reconized whether or not it is considered worth it. Mothers having baby's and going back to work in 3 weeks, that's freedom? If someone compells them to go back by force then no, but that isn't the case. Compelling someone (even an insurance company) to pay for their care and then to pay benefits or wages so they don't have to go back to work soon is a reduction in freedom. Again you can argue that its worth it but it is a reduction in freedom. What freedoms do you think Canadians are loosing out on? Your GUNS? That is one example. Also paying higher taxes and having the government control a larger percentage of the economy. Tim

To: fresc who wrote (137)	1/15/2005 5:47:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

You think having 40- 50 million people with out health insurance is freedom? This is the most bogus aspect of the National Healthcare debate; i.e., that health insurance is equivalent to healthcare. Many people are well insured, but still have poor healthcare -- by choice. Many people are uninsured but have great healthcare, because they choose to make it so. 14% of Americans are "uninsured". That does not mean these people are without adequate healthcare. Many CHOOSE to be uninsured--not because they CAN'T afford it, but because they choose to spend their money other ways, and are largely healthy. Others are covered by a plethora of publicly funded programs and county facilities. Children of the impoverished are entitled to receive healthcare through their state Medicaid agencies, including annual well-child visits. EPSDT screening visits are covered. A person who is destitute can qualify for coverage under state Medicaid programs. Those few who make too much much to qualify for Medicaid but still need medical attention can walk into ANY county hospital in America and get it. The number who both WANT and NEED medical care but are not able to get it is minimal. Is it perfect? No. But it is certifiably stupid to think of doing away with the best healthcare system in the world (and it is) in favor of a Canadian-styled system. Here, almost all people received first-rate healthcare. In Canada, NOBODY receives first rate care. People in poverty is freedom? You're confusing two unrelated concepts. Mothers having baby's and going back to work in 3 weeks, that's freedom? It is less than ideal, but it certainly does not in any way pertain to the concept of "freedom".