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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ayn rand who wrote (17376)	8/14/2009 11:39:23 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 103300

If the violence does escalate, it will hurt Republicans.

To: ayn rand who wrote (17376)	8/14/2009 10:52:54 PM
From: Broken_Clock	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

August 12, 2009 Why is Rationing by Income Better Than Rationing by Need? 10 Questions to Ask If You Find Yourself at an ObamaCare Town Hall Meeting By DAVE LINDORFF 1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer? 2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada? 3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea? 4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense? 5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation? 6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system? 7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us? 8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person? 9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now? 10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer? Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). He can be reached at dlindorff@mindspring.com counterpunch.com