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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (378783)	4/17/2008 3:06:55 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576611

John recommended me to this thread after I got gangbanged by Chinu, Sioux Pig and Dale Bakesale on the obama thread. Hello John.

To: Road Walker who wrote (378783)	4/18/2008 10:03:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576611

>>> So you think that means we offer universal health care? If "universal" means everyone has insurance, then no, there is a very small number of people who don't have insurance for reasons other than (a) they don't want it, or (b) they don't want to comply with the government's requirements for receiving free health care. When I say a "small number", we're not talking 40 million as the Left is so fond of claiming. The number who are uninsured for reasons other than (a) or (b) above is undoubtedly well below 5% of the population. I think that legislation to address the true needs of that 5% would be fine -- but that would not mean the government providing health care for them -- it would mean seeking out these people and addressing their problems. In some cases, it is portability, in others they cannot afford it and need to be encompassed within a state Medicaid program (which the feds would have to fund). The main thing is that you don't throw out the best health care system in the world in an effort to pick up coverage for 5% of the people -- you just fix the problem.