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: John Koligman who wrote (6057)	2/12/2009 10:45:21 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

If that requires subsidies, so be it. The federal government already spends over $600bil a year subsidizing or directly paying for health care and health insurance. If we can spend trillions on banksters, why not healthcare Maybe because we spent trillions on bankers. The two ideas are mostly not connected. One doesn't justify the other, they each have to be analyzed on their own merits. To the extent payments to banks, investment banks, etc. have any effect on the merits of the idea of spending more government money on health care, its the effect of us already having higher government spending, and higher government debt, and thus being less able to afford expensive new additions to both.