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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (303170)	9/14/2006 8:50:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573135

Actually Jane Galt isn't a "Rand wannabe" janegalt.net But even if she was that's hardly a counterargument. The feds don't pay some of the same costs that the private sector has to pay (they don't pay income tax for example) and they also pass some of the costs on to other branches of the feds (where they aren't counted as part of the costs of administering the health care program. Now you can argue that the feds costs would be cheaper anyway, but we have no real evidence of that. Krugman looks at the official costs which ignore the facts that "Jane Gault" and others have pointed out. Those facts are extremely solid (or are you going to assert that the feds pay income tax and that tax receipts are counted as costs of medical care?) the alias of the person who points them out is irrelevant. Can't you at least admit that there are a few things where government can save us money? There are some things that the private sector may be effectively unable to provide, but its hard to think of any broad areas where that it could easily provide but where the federal government could almost certainly provide a better combination of price, speed, and quality.