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 (10421)	10/14/2009 11:11:43 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 42652

WRONG WAY "If you're going the wrong way down a road, the answer isn't to step on the gas, but to turn around," Michael D. Tanner writes in a blog at usatoday.com. "It is not that the U.S. doesn't need health care reform, but it needs the right type of reform. Problematic as our system often is, it is possible to make things worse," said Mr. Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and co-author of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It." "All the bills making their way through Congress start from the same failed premise: They would put the government in charge of one-sixth of our economy and some of the important personal and private decisions in our lives. "They would force people to buy a government-designed insurance package or face a penalty. They would establish incentives and structures that could eventually lead to the rationing of care. Some versions would force millions of workers into a government-run plan. "And they would do so at enormous cost to the American people in terms of higher taxes, greater debt and increased insurance premiums. Even the cheapest bill costs more than $800 billion ($2 trillion if off-budget costs are included) over the next decade. Americans would end up paying more, but getting less." Mr. Tanner added: "It's time for Congress to scrap its current flawed government-centered approach and start over with a focus on creating a consumer-oriented free market in health care. "After all, isn't it better to get it done right than to just get it done?"

To: John Koligman who wrote (10421)	10/14/2009 11:44:07 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Hey Lane, you been in a bad mood lately because Olympia helped seal the deal? Not at all. I was hoping she'd vote that way. Great strategy. You'd best waid and see what she ends up voting on at the end of the day and how she votes on it before getting too cheerful. I think it's pretty clear that over the past decade things are heading downhill for all but the top. My projected net worth has taken a hit during the last decade but I haven't had to make any life-style adjustments because of it. I don't know anyone who has. I know that the last decade has been horrid for a lot of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time but hardly "all but the top." That's pretty hyperbolic. I still have trouble attributing your concern about the excesses of a few people to anything but jealousy, which is one of the "deadly sins" for a reason. It appears that isn't enough time to declare a 'trend' yet for some of you... The loss of manufacturing has long been a concern of mine. For a long time the service industry compensated. Don't know how long that can last. As for trends in executive compensation, I don't have any reason to think the last ten years has made any difference.