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: Peter Dierks who wrote (9520)	9/15/2009 3:38:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

From my perspective, the path we are on is towards the failed system that pragmatism is now correcting in other countries. Since pragmatism is correcting the situation in other countries, my take is that we would go to school off them after a while. You know how the intellectuals tend to follow France. <g> You were questioning my assertion that a government takeover of the healthcare system would result in systematic decisions to make healthcare unavailable for certain groups such as the elderly. Yes, and I still do. I find no reason to change my mind. You were challenging most vehemently that abuses by individuals would be a problem. And I still do. Then and now I recognize the potential for individuals to abuse. It could happen. But not on a large scale. Sure, it shouldn't happen at all, but it happening to a handful of people that some crazy government official doesn't like is an anomaly. You don't design around anomalies and you don't get all worked up over them. My take on the difference between your view and mind on these things is twofold. First, you are a partisan and I am not. Which means that you carry a competitiveness and hostility that I do not. The competitiveness and hostility makes everything more polarized and threatening. Secondly, I am reminded me of a bit of wisdom I once heard from an old boss who was faced with complaints about unfair treatment. He said that staff tend to weigh their merit based on what they know that they can do and the merit of others based on how they actually perform. It seems to me that you weigh the threat from the Ds based on what you know they want to do instead of what they actually can and will do. That makes them seem scarier than they are. I see what they might want to do but won't be able to pull off as informative but not threatening. I think you award them way to much power.