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: TimF who wrote (3393)	12/20/2007 6:16:10 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

There are two major problems with putting so much weight on analysis. 1 - Different people have different ideas and goals. Even if analysis can show us what will happen with different plans, it can't say which plan is the best. It can only give information to people to use to determine what is best. 2 - Its questionable whether such analysis can really give us information about what the results of different plans will be with any degree of confidence. Which seems a good reason to use real world experience... ie the US system is twice as expensive as the European systems.

To: TimF who wrote (3393)	12/20/2007 7:59:54 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<The real world is always a lot more complex than models of it. >>> I agree with you, but, how can you then go around telling people that you know with absolute certainty that your vision for health care is best for America or that it will even work. As far as I know there are no examples of a successful implementation of a completely market driven health care system on any level whereas there are at least 12 countries that have a health care plan that provide health care for all their citizens. It would be like me complaining to Bill Gates that his OS and that of Apple's and Linux all suck and that I wish there is an OS that is completely intuitive, that will not crash, and that does not waste resources (memory, dasd, bandwidth, etc). It would be one thing for me to wish for something, but it would be something else for me to lecture Bill Gates on how to design an OS. Suppose I could describe a model for a better OS, I would still then have to be able to prove it: 1. On a theoretical level 2. and, that it can be coded, tested, implemented, and maintained. That is a long ways away from what Bill has already accomplished. I think I should have a bunch of humility to fall back on.