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 (3199)	12/10/2007 9:12:34 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

...are well to do and are well insured so defend the status quo. I hadn't noticed anyone here defending the status quo. Perhaps I missed something. And even if people were, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are feathering their own nests. Some might do so on principle, nest notwithstanding.

To: gg cox who wrote (3199)	12/11/2007 10:36:49 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I posted it because "not conclusive" doesn't equal "not interesting", or "useless". the dollar cost to him $0.00 other than taxes. and high to everyone else, there is no free lunch, only lunches other people pay for If one of the 47 million uninsured in America would have encountered such misfortune , what would be the outcome? I don't know exactly. I don't even know all the specifics about the Canadian situation, let alone hypothetical specifics about what the hypothetical uninsured person in America. But he wouldn't have been left to die. A lot of the cost would have been spread to others, perhaps enough would be put on him that he would be bankrupt. Or maybe he's one of the wealthy uninsured that effectively self insure. Or maybe he's one that's eligible for Medicare or Medicaid and just hasn't signed up yet. No way to give a real answer without knowing a ton of specifics.