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 (11889)	11/25/2009 4:44:30 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

Your previous posts made it look like you were all for rationing care to everyone in the US. I can't imagine how you could have gotten that impression. I have been a vociferous opponent of sucking more people into public systems. I have been a vociferous opponent of the pending legislation. You even called me the "poster child" for the opposition. I have two thousand posts on this thread, for heaven's sake. How could you possibly think that I want to put even more people under a public system let alone one that might deprive us of the right to pay our own bills for additional services? I am certain that I have more than one post on that latter topic as it is a particular hobby horse of mine. My goodness, man! Obviously supporting the government option means everyone will be subject to federal government interference. Only those who are covered by the government option, not everyone. "Everyone" is hype. I would prefer to have private enterprises doing the rationing. Well, of course. The difference between rationing in a government system and in private insurance was discussed at length upstream. As I recall, we discussed how, with private insurance, you have more freedom to choose a policy that rations in a way most suitable to your needs. And how private companies need to be judicious in their rationing or they get a bad reputation and customers go elsewhere. I'm certain that somewhere in that discussion I took a position of opposition to nationalized coverage because then you have no freedom of choice. And I'm certain that somewhere in there I fussed about countries where it was illegal to go outside the system. I'm sure I stated somewhere that that was the worst case scenario. Once again, all payers ration. Whether we pay the bills ourselves, have private insurance, or are under a government plan, there is rationing. Some things just aren't worth the price. There is nothing disreputable about it. It is natural and inevitable. It is only disreputable if the payer cheats the insured out of what he is due or deprives him of the right to take his business elsewhere.