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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (263113)	4/30/2008 9:51:02 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Coming into a small town and destroying small businesses is how Walmart become Walmart. It was an easy-pickins strategy because there was no competition. No, after I pointed out the fallacy of your original point, you started adding limitations onto your original point so that you could avoid simply admitting that you were wrong. You started off with: " The problem is that once you go public, whether or not its better, its very hard to go back." Migrated to this: "Not for anything that gets represented as a right, and which gives benefits of some sort to millions of people." To this: "The benefit is an issue when it doesn't go to the middle class." Now to this: "Many types are very hard to cancel, and broad based benefits, for things people see as important, that also destroy the existing private market for the service in question, are next to impossible to cancel." -------------- You forgot to add, when it is something that you specify as a benefit that goes to the middle class on a Sunday in Winter when the moon is out. So you are saying that you don't have any numbers to support your arguments because you can't see into the future? Then you have no support for your arguments which I have been saying all along. You can certainly look to other similar situations, look at the current untenable situation and come up with a rational argument. What are the "many other direct and indirect effects" of universal preventive care? So you are in agreement with Medicare's inability to negotiate with drug companies since that would be some kind of price control? You believe that only drug companies should be in control of prices for their products and their customers are without recourse? Aren't you a capitalist? " And whatever you want to call it one of the things we will "gain", is a great reduction in future drug research, development, and testing." How do you know this to be true? What portion of current prices go to this venture and what part of R&D is paid for by the US taxpayer anyway? You make these statements as if they were true but they are simply your opinions. Why would this be the case? Simply have the AMA stop clamping down on the number of doctors educated in the USA every year and the number of foreign doctors who are allowed to practice here. Higher costs for medical education? For whom and why? Are you talking about overall of per pupil? You really aren't much of a capitalist as you want to continue the stranglehold of Republicans, drug companies, the AMA, health insurance companies, etc. on our bloated and inefficient health care system.