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: gg cox who wrote (2159)	9/28/2007 12:59:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

A factual story about what happened to one person is anecdote. It only deals with the specific type of situation that that one person had to deal with and it may not even be representative of that specific situation. Either side of the argument can pile anecdote upon anecdote of something good or something bad in any type of health care system. After all we are dealing with large systems serving millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) of people. The best system is going to have some poor stories come from it, a poor system is very likely to have some good stories. So such anecdotal evidence, while in a sense more clear, and more certainly true (assuming the person telling the story is honest, and for your anecdotes I have made that assumption) than statistics, is still a weak argument for your case. But you act as if it was conclusive because its "factual". Factual doesn't mean "conclusive", or even "gives a correct impression about the system as a whole".

To: gg cox who wrote (2159)	9/28/2007 1:33:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You only listed two "factual stories" which only show that two people got decent health care under socialist systems. Sure the stories are true, but they don't prove that socialism is the ideal solution for quality health care. We know that things provided by a socialist system aren't free, they are simply paid for by taxpayers. That means that in your post when you say the care you received cost you nothing you were wrong about that - the cost is simply paid by your (and everyone else in the country's) taxes. We also know that socialist systems ration care by denying or drastically delaying it. No need to deny those facts either.