SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Eric who wrote (11838)11/24/2009 9:14:53 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
>>> Sadly we will become a sick, third world country if we don't get healthcare to all of our citizens.

All of our citizens currently have health care available to them, and for the most part it is the best available anywhere in the world.



To: Eric who wrote (11838)11/25/2009 7:25:11 AM
From: Lane33 Recommendations  Respond to of 42652
 
If you can lower costs and provide coverage and keep people from going bankrupt I'm all ears.

There are ways to do that. This monstrosity of a bill isn't. Even if this bill would meet those objectives, which it won't, there are better approaches. Being against this bill is not the same as being against reform although it is mindlessly perceived that way by most proponents.



To: Eric who wrote (11838)11/25/2009 10:58:03 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 42652
 
Odd:

Sadly we will become a sick, third world country if we don't get healthcare to all of our citizens.

The rational analysis says that if we do this government healthcare we will become a third world country. It also would cause a drastic curtailment of medical research throughout the world.

Even psuedo-conservative Brooks in the NYTimes agrees that it would turn the US into a third world country.