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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51647)	3/5/2008 9:23:35 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540924

<<Should I infer, then that the government is or should be responsible for providing a healthy retirement income for those who can't do so for themselves?>> If a person doesn't have enough sense to fund their own retirement, the government should not be required to step forward and do so. <<Should I infer that you're talking about life-saving operations and medication but not routine medical care? If a person does not get "routine medical care", then it could lead to more serious illnesses. Isn't it in the interest of government to preserve the life of its citizens? Every woman, for instance, should be able to get a mammography and the test for cervical cancer without charge. The government should get out of the retirement business and ditch social security. It is not the duty of government to enhance an individual's life through a generous retirement package. That is the responsibility of the individual to decide what kind of life he wants to live when he becomes a senior citizen. Universal healthcare means in principle good accessible healthcare for All.