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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306972)	10/19/2006 12:40:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575605

re: > One of the arguments against universal coverage usually unfolds under the ironic label "moral hazard" - that if we morally weak humans are offered something "free" (meaning that someone else is paying for it) we will abuse it. For example, a bowl of free candy will disappear much more quickly than candy you have to pay for yourself. But that argument assumes people would consume health care in the same way they gobble down free candy. I think that conclusion is crazy. ________________________ He must have fallen off the turnip truck if he thinks such abuse isn't going on right now. You conveniently cut off his thought... he goes on: Other than seasoned hypochondriacs, who wants to unnecessarily visit the doctor or go into the hospital - just because you have insurance - instead of going to the beach or playing golf? Of course, there will be some abuse, but that should be easily outweighed by offering many more of us a chance to be healthier, not to mention a better shot at "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Would there be some abuse; certainly. Would the good outweigh the bad; yes. What's the saying? "Don't make the good a victim of the perfect".