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: Lane3 who wrote (11738)	11/24/2009 9:38:40 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Brooks is a moron. He is a liberal that by comparison to his leftwingnut coworkers seems to be conservative. Calling him a conservative is like calling Glenn Beck a liberal. The article is a thinly veiled attempt to guilt trip America into a bankrupting mistake. the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.” Rather than pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as past governments have done, the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Yet the taxes they raise won't keep the thing solvent for more than ten years. HHS says MediCare will be bankrupt by 2017. Throwing more obligations into the fire just accelerates the burn rate. It would be throwing good money after bad.

To: Lane3 who wrote (11738)	11/24/2009 10:33:30 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Brooks is a liberal moron

To: Lane3 who wrote (11738)	11/24/2009 10:34:58 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

National health care will bankrupt us

To: Lane3 who wrote (11738)	11/24/2009 10:54:20 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

I usually find Brooks to be rambling, almost unreadable. But this article does get to the point, even if he makes a key mistake along the way: "And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive." The above statement is fundamentally wrong. Why he made that statement in an otherwise okay article is inexplicable to me. This legislation, if passed, will undoubtedly result in a decline in the quality of health care overall. When you eliminate Medicare Advantage, which it will effectively do, you leave people who found that coverage to be "better" in some way with a lesser coverage. And there are many, many areas where what amounts to abuse of the system (Durable Medical Equipment comes to mind) will be reformed, but it is inarguable that the result is damaging the care some receive, even if justifiably so. In fact, I can't think of a time when extending a bureaucracy has made the services received by its "customers" better. Maybe you can. Brooks has the major point wrong here. This bill makes health care much, much worse for the masses, although a few who are now not receiving the best care will see their situations improved if the legislation passes. Not a sensible tradeoff IMO.