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: Peter Dierks who wrote (235839)	7/9/2007 3:53:46 PM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

World leaders are younger and healthier now.....seriously. remember to old guard in russia ...walking corpses.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (235839)	7/9/2007 4:08:09 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So I am correct, and leaders from the countries with socialized medicine are not coming here, but somehow socialized medicine is bad? (i do remember leaders coming here for health care- but they often seemed to be tin pot dictators we had made "nice" with- not that there is anything wrong with furthering your defense by making strategic alliances with tin pot dictators and giving them access to health care, but a lack of a health system in a corrupt backward country is hardly an indictment of Western universal health care and the all nations which have it.) Look, I know you don't like the idea. But what proof do you have for your allegations that it creates a bad system, or that government intervention creates a bad system? I'm just looking for some evidence to support your dislike of such systems. What I see is that the '65 program created a huge health benefit to seniors. Apparently the systems in the UK and France produce benefits to their populations at a smaller percentage of GDP than we spend. So, they cost less and seem to serve more. I'm not sure why that isn't a step forward.