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 (2239)	10/18/2007 4:04:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Buying potatoes or paper clips for resale is gambling, John. You're gambling that you can sell them for more than you paid. Take transportation... almost all roads are built with government funds because that is the most efficient and fair way to build roads. Yeah. THAT'S a large part of why more efficent railroads can't compete against trucks in transport: trucking companies pay only a small part of the cost of the roadbed they run on, whereas railroads have to pay 100%. That doesn't mean you can't build a road on your own land. You can build a rasilroad on your own land too. But in most cases it makes no economic sense. Take education... the economy of scale and fairness make government controlling education the most effective solution. That doesn't mean you can't send your kid to a private school. Prove to me that public education is better than private. Then prove increasing education funding improves results. I dare you. If you put your kids in private schools now, you STILL are forced to pay the cost of having them in the public system. Take police or fire departments or the Defense Department......... Is that why kings so often hired mercenaries to fight their wars? The point is single payer would be more efficient and less expensive Than a gov't bureaucracy? Are you SERIOUS???? And it wouldn't be a monopoly, you could still buy your 'gold plated' insurance if you wanted to. THAT depends entirely on the system finally adopted. If the Canadian system is used as the model, forget that. In fact it would probably be very cheap. Why? Particularly when you consider that you will probably be forced to pay for public health insurance for yourself anyway.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2239)	10/18/2007 4:06:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

House fails to overturn Bush on kids' health Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:01pm EDT Email \| Print \| Digg \| Reprints \| Single Page \| Recommend (2) [-] Text [+] Photo 1 of 1Full Size Related News Bush vetoes bill on children‘s health care Pelosi to push child health plan Bush urges extension of kids health program House backs kids‘ health bill Bush, Dems battle over kids‘ health care powered by Sphere Sphere By Donna Smith WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Thursday failed to overturn President George W. Bush's veto of a plan to expand a popular children's health care program and pay for it by raising tobacco taxes. The 273-156 vote fell short of the two-thirds needed to overturn a presidential veto, giving Bush a major legislative victory but one that Democrats are likely to use against his Republicans in the 2008 elections. Democrats, who control Congress, vowed to continue pushing for the expanded program, which would provide health care to about 10 million children in low income families. "In the coming days, Democrats will not back down and we will insist on providing health care coverage to these 10 million children," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat. The battle over the program, which provides health coverage to children of families unable to afford insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor, has been intense. "The president is deluding himself if he doesn't think this veto will hurt millions of children," said Rep. Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat. Bush said the legislation, which would raise funding for the program to $60 billion over five years from the current $25 billion level, goes too far and was a major step toward government-controlled health care. The bill represented a compromise between Democrats and a group of Senate Republicans who argued that the extra $35 billion was needed to ensure coverage for more eligible children. Currently about 6.6 million children are covered by the program, which enjoys broad support among health groups and state governors. Health care is becoming a major issue in campaigns for next year's presidential election and Republicans who voted with Bush have been pummeled by television and radio ads sponsored by unions and liberal advocacy groups. Bush asked for just $5 billion in extra funding over five years, a figure that backers of the programs say is not enough to cover the current number enrolled. Bush, who is now talking about a compromise, suggested on Wednesday that he would be willing to provide enough money to ensure coverage for an additional 500,000 children who are eligible, but not currently enrolled in the program, far below the 3.4 million more kids Democrats want to cover. (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan) reuters.com