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: TimF who wrote (2223)	10/17/2007 2:46:19 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

re: Social Security spends about as much each year as we have spent on operations in Iraq over the whole course of the war. Medicare costs less than Social Security but its growing faster and will almost certainly wind up costing more per year. And that's before trying to have something like Medicare for everyone rather than just the elderly. Add in the fact that wars end while entitlements could go on for centuries and you wind up with not just a lot more spending on government medical care than Iraq, but order magnitude more spending. Its not just a difference its a massive difference, so large you really shouldn't throw the two ideas together. Social Security is a social insurance program with a dedicated tax that is running a surplus. The Iraq war is being put on the countries credit card. Big difference.

To: TimF who wrote (2223)	10/17/2007 4:19:09 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<There is strong reason to doubt that socializing both has/will provide better results in either area.>>> This Ayn Rand notion that the lonesome genius can solve all poblems by acting in his own greedy self interest is so absurd and would be hilariously funny if it were not for the fact that there are actual people who believe it.