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: Road Walker who wrote (2224)	10/17/2007 11:31:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"The only incremental part is the current uninsured, which would probably mostly be covered by the savings of going to single payer. " The discussion you are edging in on is about why leaving the poor uninsured uninsured while expanding federally subsidized medical care into the middle class is necessary. Most people who understand the issue realize it is a bad idea. As far as socializing medicine, the idea that the costs would be decreased without a proportional decrease in quality or quantity of medical care provided is ridiculous.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2224)	10/18/2007 5:48:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The only incremental part is the current uninsured, which would probably mostly be covered by the savings of going to single payer. Assuming there would be any savings, which is questionable, at least if you are not going to accept a lower quality of care for the currently insured.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2224)	10/25/2007 11:58:08 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

We are spending double what they spend in Europe, but we are likely to spend even more with a government takeover, at least if we don't want to have less quality care. All the costs of Iraq are incremental.. Every dollar of spending adds to costs, deficits, debt, etc. equally. Ongoing programs just the same as new programs, money spent in the past is sunk cost, but each years new spending for everything is incremental. And if that wasn't the case, well Iraq isn't "a new program" anymore, but any new or expanded government health care program would be new. there are even separate non-pentagon budgets. Which means just about nothing in this context. You can put the budget in any category you want, the regulator military budget, a supplemental for Iraq, hell you can put in under NASA's budget or under farm price supports, it doesn't change the nature of, or the impact of the dollars spent.