SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Koligman who wrote (110353)12/31/2007 10:27:00 PM
From: Madharry  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
that is amazingly ridiculous. as ridiculous as allowing congress to have their own health care benefits package.



To: John Koligman who wrote (110353)1/1/2008 3:50:56 PM
From: Skeeter Bug  Respond to of 132070
 
John, thanks for the invite. i read that the government already pays for half of all healthcare costs.

private insurance: 36%
fed and state government: 49%
public: 15%

i believe that there needs to be some cost associated with serves b/c "free" services will cause people to use the system more than they otherwise would.

i would like to see some kind of catastrophe insurance to cover the big bills and aid for those not able to pay for health insurance. otherwise, people ought to pay as they go and the doctors ought to have their fees and medical history available to the public so the public could comparison shop.

this would keep taxes a lot lower while still helping people truly in need.

it won't happen. it probably isn't immune to human nature's greed, but it seems to be a reasonable balance.

i know someone who is a recently retired doctor. i've known him for decades and he *never* talked about universal healthcare until he retired. now he talks about it all the time (hint, the courtesy free healthcare is mostly over for him).

that is human nature in action. people caring about their own condition while dismissing the conditions of others.