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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (4506)	2/14/2008 3:47:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

To a guy who thinks observing the color of 3 dogs is reason to decide all dogs are that color My point, to the extent it was about dogs (it was really about logic) was exactly the opposite. Observing black dogs isn't reason to believe all dogs are black. "That's an argument against universal care, it demonstrates the fact that you get locked in, so you can't really just try it and see how it works." Now where's your logic on that one??? Once someone gets something important to them as a government benefit they are unlikely to want to give it up, even if having everyone giving it up would be good for the country, and possibly even them as an individual. Once you create such a program you create a powerful constituency for it, so it will probably stay in place indefinitely, unless it becomes worse than just bad, but truly a horror. The fact that a dozen or two dozen wealthy countries have instituted something that at least resembles "universal care" of some sort, and none of the have given it up, doesn't show that its a good thing, merely that the constituency for it is sufficiently powerful to keep it in place. There is a lot more than 3 dogs involved there. A dozen "dogs", or maybe a couple of dozen. Still a low number. Was the US locked in on prohibition? But it never had a truly massive constituency, and giving it up was giving people more freedom, not removing a benefit that they had gotten used to.