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 (3671)	1/9/2008 5:28:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think your missing the point. Lane3 wasn't in those series of posts, arguing against government funded health care insurance. She was arguing against governments imposing health care treatments on competent adults, whether they want them or not, except perhaps in cases where there is a clear danger to others from them not getting the treatment. You could go to "universal coverage", and/or "single payer", or even something the Britain's NHS, without generally imposing medical care on people. So Lane3 responded with "WOW!" to " We can not let people be untreated from illness whether they want it or not" ---- Turning to the point you do raise, even if it really isn't a response to what we being discussed - I do think part of the objection is because people aren't used to it. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about major involuntary changes. But most of the objection to the new expansion of government (at least most of my objection) is that it additional. Its not like government is going to make a large reduction in spending and regulation in areas where we are used to government involvement so that the total burden of government doesn't go up when it imposes "universal health care". And then there are objections specific to the health care industry. Some people don't mind big government, or even government expanding in to new areas but they don't want health care to be one of those areas. This isn't my specific objection, so I'm not sure I could answer any questions about it. Other people do mind big government in general but also have specific reasons to oppose specific government expansions in to health care (or technically health insurance, few are pushing an NHS for the US). I've been doing some of that here. Then others are just against specific plans, but might not mind other forms of expansion of the government role. Again this isn't really my argument, so I can't speak for it. I might have specific problems with specific plans, but I don't think some better plan is going to come along, and I certainly am not pushing my own different universal health care plan.

To: Road Walker who wrote (3671)	1/9/2008 5:43:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You just see health care as very different because you are not used to it... I imagine that's a factor. Some people find gun laws restrictive, for example. Since I have never been in a gun culture, it doesn't seem so to me although I understand where they're coming from. But novelty presents an important opportunity. When the idea of adding a new restriction arises, we have the opportunity to stop, reflect, and evaluate it to see if we want to take that step. It's not that we would never want to impose another restriction. What I object to is the cavalier way we slide into them unexamined. If the step is weighed and a conscious decision is made to proceed, I can deal with that. It's the mindlessness that bugs me. I support public schools and roads. I wish we hadn't ventured into Social Security.