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: bentway who wrote (11167)	11/8/2009 3:44:24 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Which is the mark of a good compromise - neither side is happy. That's true. That notion works really well for something like a law suit where you're dividing up mostly dollars or figuring out how to share some commons. But it doesn't work well for system design. A poorly designed system is nothing but trouble for all parties. If the system is too clugy to work, it doesn't end up satisfying anyone while creating a huge drain. Politicos get so engaged in lining up the spoils that they forget that whatever they come up with has to function. I've seen some ugly systems in my time and this one is right up there. Which wouldn't be quite so bad were it not so damned expensive. My experience with systems design was always that, when there were two different approaches, I'd rather do it the other guy's way than do some half-assed compromise. A system designed by committee is doomed to failure.