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: Peter Dierks who wrote (4798)	2/22/2008 3:51:16 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 42652

I think most government and state assistance programs begin above the poverty level... I posted a link earlier which studied insurance coverage up to 2x the poverty level.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4798)	2/22/2008 3:57:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

New Jersey covers people at twice the "poverty" rate. It's still a poverty program in that it has income-based eligibility criteria. As opposed to Medicare and universal coverage, which aren't.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4798)	2/22/2008 4:13:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

One of the problems with talking about poverty in this context is that, on one hand, we have the official poverty rate, and on the other hand we have debates about whether those earning 40 or 50 or 60k can afford health insurance. Well, a 60K income puts you in the top 25% of taxpayers. 40 percent is around the median income. So, if we're saying that those who can't afford health insurance should be provided it by the government, we end up with half to three quarters of us on the dole. It's just not viable. I don't know what it is about that that the Pollyannas don't get.