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 (5086)	3/1/2008 3:52:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

<<< I doubt that many of the people pushing for universal health care would accept such a solution when the time comes.>>> You are right, but who cares. I care for one. Because they would try to go further, unaffordably trying to have everyone meet an ever higher level of care, or possibly (but probably not as likely) trying to pull down the level of care for some to make everyone's care more equal. And they probably care as well. They don't want just that level of care and would not be happy with it. This was similar to John Locke's philosophy that also included health. FDR maybe. John Locke wrote about health, for example here - bartleby.com, but I don't think he ever mentioned any right to health (which would be a rather bizarre concept) or a right to health care. The important thing is to agree to pursue the philosophy. Its not just the actual implementation, but the philosophy behind it that is very problematic. The idea of having a natural right to have others give you things and do things for you is dangerous to liberty even in the abstract, and dangerous economically if an actual attempt is made to implement it. The implementation is actually the easy part. It is just a matter of budgetting and increasing productivity. The implantation of near universal care, as good as the current average level of care, in a richer, more advanced, and more productive society in the future might indeed be "the easy part", but its also a pretty meaningless part. People in the US (even if poor and uninsured) get care now, just sub standard care. The fact that we could continue to provide sub standard care to such people in the future, is not surprising, and doesn't require any new philosophies, programs, or laws. And then if you talk about providing them with care that isn't substandard, then the implementation is no longer the easy part, because the standard keeps moving up and getting more expensive.