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: Mary Cluney who wrote (3233)	12/12/2007 1:01:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Standards for health care systems not only are not immutable, they also aren't universal at any particular time (different people would support different standards). But "safety net", applies some really low minimum that will, as Lane 3 put it "keep people from going splat". People who want a high standard "universal" system want more than a safety net. You have other issues with respect to libertarian views on self interest versus selfishness. Its not just a "self interest" thing. Your opponents in this debate think a government run universal system would be a negative for most people, not just for themselves. Its also not just an ideological thing. Its not just that they don't want what you want, but that they think the proposals you put forth or support won't give you what you apparently want.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (3233)	12/12/2007 2:58:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Even if the economy could support my version of a safety net, you would probably still object. If I thought it would work, I'd support it. I'm all for any system that works. You have other issues with respect to libertarian views on self interest versus selfishness. You have the cause and effect backwards. I came to hold those views as I recognized that collectivism doesn't and can't work long term in this country. I didn't start out with those views; I backed into them. (When I first was eligible to vote, I planned to register as a Socialist. As it turns out, my state didn't register people to parties so I never got the chance.) As I got older and as I worked with systems, I realized how bass-ackwards my thinking was. It's a sorry yet simple fact of life that sharing the commons doesn't work well with human beings. Try as we may, human nature creates bullies and free riders who deplete the commons until we reach a tipping point where it no longer makes sense to be a net contributer. The best solution to that is to have as few resources held commonly as possible. We have enough trouble sharing the commons that we can't possibly privatize, such as the air. We don't need to make health care part of the unmanageable and endangered commons. I think, for most people, the solution is to fix health care without undermining our economic system. For me, too. That's why I rule out "free" universal health care. In that, there is a solution to the problem. There is probably no solution in your weltanschuuang. There is. If we could just get people off this "free" universal health care shtick and start working on it.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (3233)	12/17/2007 2:04:23 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"I think, for most people, the solution is to fix health care without undermining our economic system. In that, there is a solution to the problem." Yes. The two proposals for fixing it are: 1) Free it from government interference and allow the free market to operate. 2) Totally regulate the market and inflict inefficient government bureaucracy upon the system. C) A blend of the two. You seem to favor taking the best medical system in the world and reducing the incentives that keep it on top. I would prefer to see two Ferarris in every doctor's garage to giving government bureaucrats the power to say I need to die because they will not authorize medical care for me.