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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5938)	2/6/2009 12:30:23 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

But I do vaguely remember something along the lines of what your saying. The topic comes up now and again. I've certainly heard it, just not as part of any final proposal. The thinking behind it is probably valid. If you give people a choice, the rich will abandon the system and may eventually balk at paying for it. Also, there would have to be some kind of rationing or the country crumbles under the weight. The more rationing, the more middle class people opt out and join the rich, which creates a downward spiral in services offered and taxpayer support. That's the practical consideration. Then there's the ideological one, the question of equality. Some people just can't accept the idea that the rich might live better than the rest of us. The only way to stop that inequality is to make it illegal to buy or sell product outside the system so we all sink or float together. I think that it's inevitable that unless you have a culture where those who can't pay their own doctor bills are grateful for whatever service they get rather than having expectations of primo service on the taypayer's dime or one that's tribally cohesive you will eventually end up with denying access to outside services. But that's not imminent.