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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maverick61 who wrote (90582)	11/19/2008 8:00:22 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

>>Really? Just where was that on the ballot? I must have missed that question<< koan: Doesn't surpise me. Next time look at a voting ballot that says president of the United States, and the House of representatives and U.S. senate.

To: maverick61 who wrote (90582)	11/19/2008 9:10:26 PM
From: studdog	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

<<We are the only western nation in the world to not to have universal health care. Do you think we are right and all other nations are wrong? YES - but I guess you prefer rationing, 6 to 12 month waits for procedures, mediocare results and gov't run bureaucracies>> The rationing argument against single universal health care is a cheap canard. Canada has lots of delays and defacto rationing, but, they only pay 7% of GDP for health care, If they paid 17% of GDP like we do, believe me, they would have no waits. We pay 17% of GDP for our tottering healthcare system, 40% of which is skimmed off by insurance companies or wasted on administration. If we had a single payer(guess what medicare's administrative overhead is - 25%? 30%? 40%? Try 3%) we could afford to pay for universal coverage by paying providers, not insurance companies and pharmaceutical advertising budgets. We could do this easily for the same dollar outlay and possibly for much less. Karl