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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (8268)	8/28/2008 3:44:12 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I believe there are a couple of fatal flaws to her presentation. First, I think she misuses the word 'effective' when she means 'efficient'. Second, the following is blatantly incorrect, imo: Healthcare spending, outside of a few categories such as vaccination, does not provide such a benefit; almost all of the benefit of modern healthcare spending is captured by the person to whom it is provided. The benefits of adequate health care go beyond protecting individuals from infecting each other. Unless we are ready to let people die in the streets from scarlet fever, minor infections, and many other easily preventable maladies, adequate health care IS in the best interest of society. For example, stopping strep throat before it turns to scarlet fever - with all its ramifications - seems a prudent measure. It seems her point is not what is the best interests of society - as adequate health care clearly is - as much her opinion that it is not the responsibility of government, but of some other body. However, there is no other ubiquitous non-government organization that would have it in their charter to provide universal health care. Unless, of course, McDonalds comes up with "would you like some amoxicillan to go with those fries?" The overall health care issue is conflated with two underlying, and I think separate, issues: 1) Do we provide adequate health care for all Americans? 2) Should government provided health care be operated by the government, or by private organizations funded by the government? As to #1, I believe that answer is fairly straightforward. America pledges an education to all citizens; is an education more important that health care? I think not. So, the question SHOULD be #2. Although I disagree with school vouchers, I don't know why Republicans don't propose that health care be provided by truly private organizations funded by the government (note: maybe they have, and I haven't noticed). It would seem a good parallel argument to the privatization of education. I would actually be more in favor of a public funding of private organizations to provide health care than that same process for education. But I may be in the severe minority.