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: Sawdusty who wrote (64717)	5/9/2008 3:33:56 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 543084

If I may say, looking from the outside, this is a bit of "I'm all right", let them eat cake. JMO, but this is pretty much the left's equivalent to the soft on terrorism charge that comes out of the right. If you arent for universal health care you must be some sort of horrible selfish person. Slacker

To: Sawdusty who wrote (64717)	5/9/2008 4:27:37 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 543084

I will say that in my opinion, and also in that of most of the world, education and health care are very near the top of the list of government responsibilities. I thank you for the response. It's one I can understand. I think that if one grows up in a society where the government provides health care and education, it's natural to think that's the way things should be, that it's a basic government function. When faced with a conversion to that paradigm, not so much. Some folks in the us don't support public education, either. I might not if I hadn't grown up with it. Hard to tell. You response, though, is different from, dare I say irrelevant to, the point that triggered the question. Health care as a government responsibility isn't responsive to the notion of indemnifying against financial calamity, which was your original point. I can sleep at night knowing that I won't go bankrupt next week if I become seriously ill. That was your original point. And I still don't understand why one would lose sleep over medical bills as opposed to other equivalent or worse risks of bankruptcy. I don't get that at all. nothing I could possibly say would sway your opinion even a little I don't think this chatter, any of it, is about swaying opinions in any direction. For me it's all about understanding various points of view, gaining insights from a diverse group, and testing my own ideas. If I may say, looking from the outside, this is a bit of "I'm all right", let them eat cake. It may be for some. It's not for me. I'm an old war horse systems analyst. I simply want the optimal system. I think that those pushing for taxpayer indemnification of health care costs (see, I didn't say "socialized.") are being precipitous, are not analyzing the problem, are too eager to change horses in midstream, are leaping before they're looking. Seems to me that's how we ended up in Iraq. Don't want to go there. Even someone as wealthy as Elizabeth Edwards can see what a terrible reality it is for many people, and kudos to her for trying to change it. What I find most irksome is the binary assumption that those who don't advocate single-payer medical care don't see the problems with the current system and/or don't want to change them. Maybe there are different ways of changing them, ways that are better than single-payer. But its advocates are very attached to their ill-considered IMO notion, not listening, and too ready to attribute ill motives to those not falling in line. You are obviously happy with your own coverage, and that's cool. Unwarranted assumption, one of those ill motives I referenced, methinks. Last comment, is that I am extremely puzzled when people are willing to pay huge sums for insurance but balk at paying the money in taxes. I've seen no indication of that. Do you have some basis for that impression? The only difference I can see is that they possibly feel the insurance company is covering similar individuals, whereas taxes might go towards helping someone not paying as much. But that's back to the "I'm all right" attitude. In the US, taxpayers already pay for health coverage for the poor. It's called Medicaid. Taxpayers pay for coverage for the elderly. It's called Medicare. Taxpayers also pay for coverage of not quite poor children. So we're already paying for most of those "not paying as much." That is not the issue. The issue is controlling costs. And any rationing or tax increases that would result from an expected inability to control costs. Single-payer advocates simply cite lower costs in other countries. Skeptics see pitfalls. Maybe not to a system such as ours, but you have to start somewhere. You don't "start with" something this drastic and this irrevocable. That's precipitous and reckless.