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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (127246)	7/24/2005 1:08:33 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793718

Thanks for the longer post, Michael. It appears to me we start from different premises. I consider one of the roles of the federal government to offer safety nets, to provide protection for folk who need it. Social security, for instance, almost did away with poverty among the elderly. I have little doubt that good statistics would show that illness among the poor was reduced with medicaid, even at the miserable level of funding it presently is given. I also think we should all have federally funded medicare insurance coverage. I have little doubt we would all be better off with it. I would not be surprised if the increase of taxes required to fund it would be more than offset by my lowered property taxes (much of the increase is for health insurance), lowered taxes and tuition fees for education (much of that increase these days is due to health insurance costs), lower costs for goods and services (since much of the increases in those costs are due to the same). And we would have a much healthier society. Those folk who can't afford health insurance at present would be able to get care. But that's not going to happen in the present climate. Just my own wishlist.