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 (4572)	2/17/2008 10:50:34 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

You, I recall, call for putting everyone not insured on Medicaid.... I didn't "call for" that. I was just trying to get you to recognize that this isn't a binary problem--our way or Canada's way. There are lots of threads running through the problem and lots of ways of dealing with each one. If you want universal health care, the simplest way is the Medicaid route. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. How about putting everyone on Medicare? Because Medicare is geared to the elderly. Medicaid is geared to young, poorish families, which is the demographic at issue here. Medicare doesn't have any coding for maternity care, for example, because the elderly don't need that. So adding more people to Medicaid is a much simpler process. It could be done almost immediately. Just add a couple of zeros to the budget. The kind of system you're talking about would take many years to implement. It would make Y2K planning look as simple as a price change at the supermarket. Anyone who won't even listen to that argument is flag waving, not problem solving.