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: Road Walker who wrote (3616)	1/6/2008 2:07:35 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<But I do object to the libertarian 'hate and distrust' of government on almost every level. IMHO it stands in the way of the most efficient solutions to problems and progress. The ideology gets in the way of pragmatic, efficient solutions.>>> I agree. Even if we grant that private enterprise will be more efficient in each and every instance than govenment run operations, libertarians will still just ignore situations where there is a need that private enterprise can not or will not fulfill. I will agree that the postal service and major league baseball will be better served without government interference (exemption from anti trust legislation) but health care and education are better served if treated as a national security matter. If we are attacked militarily, we can not wait for private enterprise to organise a rational defence. Similarly with education. We have to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get an education through a network of public and private resources. It is in our interest that every child is forced to go to school whether they want to go or not. The same could be said for health care. People will have to be disease free whether they want it or not. We can not let people be untreated from illness whether they want it or not. The only question that should remain is how we are to pay for national security, public education, and universal health care. Obviously third world countries can not provide these luxuries. Fortunately, we do not live in the third world. We are a member of the advanced coummunities in the world. We have to figure out a way to do this and not debate whether we should do it or not.

To: Road Walker who wrote (3616)	1/7/2008 12:47:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"For the country, there are things that the government does that benefit ALL the citizens of the country, that probably wouldn't be accomplished if the federal government didn't fund the project. Military is one... if the private sector tried to build a cohesive, effective military it obviously wouldn't work." That is such a good idea that our forefathers saw fit to list it in the Constitution. They listed what they saw as the three important functions of the federal government: provide for the common defense; provide a unified currency; provide a unified foreign policy. As much as times have changed, the expansion of federal government keeps reproving the wisdom of our founders. Those are the three things that are vital and that no entity outside of the federal government could reasonably accomplish. We can enumerate dozens of things that need to be accomplished on a national level that do not require national intervention. The highway system certainly came together faster than it would have if not for Ike's strong national leadership and funding. If I understand correctly the FAA was until recently organized more like a business than a governmental unit. OTOH there was a need for consistency in tort laws so the states got together, organized and passed the UCC and several additional uniform codes. The list of federal meddling and governmental agencies that are a disaster is almost as long as the list of federal agencies. "built a highways system that made transportation of people and goods at least 3X more efficient." He got the idea from Germany. Most of us would rather pass on submitting to Nazi rule even if they could make transportation more efficient. Though reading democrat talking points is eerily reminiscent of the National Socialist agenda.