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 : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pogohere who wrote (18474)	8/6/2009 3:59:50 AM
From: Oblomov	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50052

Let's start with a more basic issue: Humans have a right to contract that precedes the existence of government. Regardless of the record (and as long as we use undistorted comparisons, I have no problem stacking up a public-private mix like the US with a public system), how can a majority have the legitimate power to take away the right of a minority to contract freely with regard to the provision of something as essential as the provision of health care? Do you also think that a majority has the right to restrict the freedom of movement, or to take away the free speech rights of a minority?

To: pogohere who wrote (18474)	8/6/2009 12:01:47 PM
From: Webster Groves	2 Recommendations Respond to of 50052

The actual healthcare "delivery" comes from doctors and hospitals, most of whom are private "vendors". Unless the government intends to create a federalized healthcare workforce and facilities, the morbidity results will not change regardless of whether the government or private insurance is covering the bill. Presumably if neither covers the bill, the healthcare is not "delivered" next time around. The question really is whether a for-profit claims processing service we call "insurance" adds anything beneficial to the equation. I think not. It just adds to the cost. wg