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: Lane3 who wrote (3697)	1/10/2008 1:30:36 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Don't take questions and objections as a lack of consideration. There are some here who are ideologically opposed. Not pragmatically opposed. Even if were guaranteed to lower our costs by 50%, improve quality and cover everyone, they would still be opposed. Similarly, advocates of socialized medicine duck questions, for example, the one about how increasing demand, inevitable with lowered cost, would be avoided, thereby increasing costs. I never ducked that. Maybe you forgot.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3697)	1/10/2008 2:01:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OT One of the questions raised has been the fairness of double taxation in the transition, people who currently have accumulated savings that were taxed when earned having to pay tax again when they need to spend their savings. If there was a good, and not overly complex answer to that question I'd be a major supporter of something like the "fair tax" idea. I strongly dislike income taxes. There are other objections and problems, but I think they can mostly be overcome or ignored (not in the sense of pretending they don't exist, they should be considered, but in the sense of pointing out that the income tax is also far from perfect, that no tax system will be perfect)