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 (4999)	2/26/2008 9:07:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

In any other type of health care system, there ultimately has to be some kind of judgement by people in government as to who is "deserving" of health care. You have that backwards. It's the single-payer system where people in government make those decisions. They don't make them now. That's one reason why so many people don't want your change.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4999)	2/27/2008 12:03:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Now at least your arguing for your assertion, but it doesn't change the fact that your earlier statement was begging the question. We aren't starting from "universal health care" = "better", we are discussing whether or not its better (either in abstract, or more importantly in the real world where you have to actually implement such a system). And better doesn't just mean "produces some health care benefits" (which I wouldn't dispute), or even "on the net makes health care better (which is in dispute), but something more like "on the net makes health care sufficiently better to be worth the costs and problems, and produces a benefit that is larger than using the same resources for something else") Any other kind of health care system can not ever prevail. "Can not ever" is just false. And even if it was true, it would only mean that "universal health care" was an almost universally popular idea, not that it was really better. there ultimately has to be some kind of judgement by people in government as to who is "deserving" of health care. Only when the government is providing or paying for the health care. Otherwise the government doesn't have to make any such judgment.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4999)	2/28/2008 2:25:28 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 42652

mary, Universal single payer health care has definitely not been perfected, but you just know that it is only a matter of time. To let people get sick and die because they do not have money is not going to be tolerated. There is rationing in every system. Even a single payer system has only so much money and it lets some people die because of lack of money. So some people will die because of lack of money - one way or another. Who should decide who dies, some government commissar? Joe