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 (18483)	8/6/2009 10:47:18 AM
From: Oblomov	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50053

What is your evidence that the private-public corporatist melange we have "does you in faster" than a single-payer system would? Why do you think that single-payer would be better than a true private system (which we have not had in many years)? There is a strong moral argument for subsidizing the care of the infirm and indigent. I have no problem with doing so. We already do so with Medicaid and CHIP. What I have an issue with is subsidizing the lifestyle choices of supposedly middle-class Americans. When someone chooses to buy a gummint clunker or a fancy new couch, while basic items such as food and health care are subsidized, it creates a fundamentally dishonest, unsustainable culture. Where does the wealth creation come from to sustain it? The arguments about uninsurability can be dealt with through true regulatory reform. For example, by allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines and allowing health annuties (i.e. cash-value whole health insurance or multi-year health contracts), the intergenerational Ponzi scheme could be ended.