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 (9438)	9/14/2009 6:43:57 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I don't trust the 'private' insurance industry to do what is necessary without a government push. I can understand that position. So, I support a public option. But I don't understand your "ergo." Why can't that government push be regulation, the tried and true way for the government to push? BTW, did you read that piece I cited on the public option? I found it compelling. Message 25938910

To: John Koligman who wrote (9438)	9/14/2009 8:28:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

I don't trust the 'private' insurance industry to do what is necessary without a government push. Let me translate this comment. "I don't trust people to select health insurance options that benefit themselves without a government bureaucrat telling them what they need." Free markets work efficiently. Government is always inefficient. The reason that the Constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the federal government is that our Founding Fathers knew that the more power in federal hands the worse the government would be. History has proven that centralized planning always fails. Why do you want failure for our medical system?