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 (3381)	12/19/2007 9:37:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

In this equation there are differences that range from the two extremes to everything in between. We "all" know that it can not work at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Excellent. I've been so disappointed at how this thread has turned into the battle of the extreme strawmen. Now, what remains is to define the tipping point of each extreme and not go past them. I would submit that, on the one side, that we aren't going to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. This country isn't going to give up medical assistance to the old, young, and poor. It's also not going to stop providing emergency treatment to all comers. Ain't gonna happen and advocating same is over the top reactionaryism. On the other side, I would submit that treating free, comprehensive health benefits as a human or Constitutional right is likewise over the top. No sound legal or moral basis for that has ever been demonstrated and it's economically unsound. The discussion needs to occur between those extremes. There are many factors within the health care issue. Each needs to be addressed discretely and thoughtfully without making mush of the arguments or demonizing or both.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (3381)	12/19/2007 11:40:44 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

We "all" know that it can not work at the extreme ends of the spectrum. We all know that it can't work at the extreme government control end of the spectrum. We don't know that it can't work at the extreme free market end. Not that I'm advocating no government role, I'm just pointing out it isn't something that we KNOW doesn't work. (I suppose if you include no regulation of fraud and abuse as part of "no government role, than we know it doesn't work well, but I'm only talking about no government role in providing or paying for the service, government would still act to enforce laws). We pretty much know that the extreme free market solution is unlikely to work perfectly (although when does any system dealing with a big complex problem work perfectly?), most particularly there will be a problem with medical care for the very poor. Also its probably a good idea for government to spend money on basic medical research. But basically relying on the market usually works. The point of government intervention is to address certain special cases of market failure, externalities, and such. (Always keeping in mind that even when there is market failure, it doesn't automatically mean that government solutions will be better.) You frame the issues as one were we should do some analysis to find the optimum point between two extremes, but the optimum point could be one with much less government involvement. Also an optimum point can be an continually changing thing. That last point is a reason to rely heavily on market solutions because they tend to adjust better. The world is too complex, that's why trying to analyze some perfect government response usually doesn't work, and while the default should be a market solution perhaps with careful targeted government interventions to deal with specific problems.