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: Archie Meeties who wrote (8584)	8/21/2009 5:06:33 PM
From: longnshort	6 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

"Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What possibly could go wrong?" h/t unclewest

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8584)	8/21/2009 5:17:45 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

A better system would tilt more toward government promotion of health based on science and less towards satisfying the immediate wishes of the consumer (gasp!). That's a very paternalistic attitude, disrespectful to the citizenry. Our citizenry may be stupid, irrational, short-sighted, etc., but we in a democracy at least maintain the fiction that folks can think for themselves and by and large make competent decisions. Even if they can't, they have a right to their own choices under the Constitution. I admit that sometimes it's tempting to think that the "experts" know what's best for us, better than we know ourselves. Well, if not ourselves, then certainly the other guy. Often they do. I am personally fond of the notion of a wise and benevolent despot. Ideally that would be the most effective and efficient system of government. But despots have power and there is no assurance that they will be either wise or benevolent. So we don't authorize them. In democracies majorities have power. But majorities are not reliably wise or benevolent either. So we constrain their power. We accept the imperfect and messy world of freedom because it's the best choice. Think how you would like it if "the other guys" were to gain that power. Then you can understand why you shouldn't allow anyone to have it.