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: Mary Cluney who wrote (4720)	2/21/2008 12:50:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You refuse to acknowledge that universal health care coverage has been successfully implemented in more than 15 advanced nations in the western world. Huh??? Of course I don't. I don't know if the exact number is 15 or not, but it's definitely been implemented successfully in many countries. I've never suggested otherwise. That represents about 15/16 percent of the population. I can't make any sense of that response. Perhaps you could reword it. Universal coverage means everyone is covered. We would then not need to make any subjective judgments. True, if everyone is covered, then the uninsured are not an issue. But that's not the point. The point is whether it's necessary or whether it's overkill. If you everyone is six feet tall, then everyone gets to ride on the roller coaster. You don't need a sign that says "you have to be this tall." But we don't need to feed everyone enough human growth hormone so that they reach six feet. That's overkill.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4720)	2/21/2008 2:50:27 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42652

"You refuse to acknowledge that universal health care coverage has been successfully implemented in more than 15 advanced nations in the western world. " We acknowledge that they are failures, you seem unwilling to do this. Canada would quickly fall apart if they could not rely on the US at times when their systemic underfunding becomes problematic. England is experiencing horrible failures and nurturing terrorists because of the low pay. You have yet to point out one Socialized Medical system that is not failing. "Universal coverage means everyone is covered. We would then not need to make any subjective judgments." As many people have repeatedly pointed out to you, the ability to afford socialized medicine relies upon cutting services to patients and pay for providers. This ultimately leaves government bureaucrats in the position of making subjective judgements that cut short peoples' lives.