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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (542949)	1/11/2010 5:21:33 PM
From: SilentZ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574102

>Lots of factors beating down inflation right now. Doesn't mean you can just print money like a banana republic and assume inflation won't rear its ugly head in our lifetimes. Except we're not, really. There are definitely things we're spending money on that we should be spending money on, but we've printed money faster at other times in out history and have run larger deficits as a percentage of GDP. >Sounds like yet another cooked up statistic. By Harvard Medical School. prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com And even if the real number were only a quarter of that, that's a LOT of people dying. >I've already told you about the troubles at King-Drew Medical Center and how many people died there because of bureaucratic screwups. You're advocating policies that will repeat those very mistakes on a national level. King-Drew has its own problems, I'm sure. But even if your nightmare scenario did come true, I'd rather have people dying because of "bureaucratic screwups" than them dying by design. >All to satisfy your guilt over people who can't afford basic health care. My guilt? I'm not guilty of anything. I'd like to fix a broken system. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (542949)	1/12/2010 11:16:32 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574102

> One life? 45,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of lack of insurance. Sounds like yet another cooked up statistic. It is silly; while not having insurance probably contributed to the deaths of SOME people every year, the question is how much money you spend in an effort to REDUCE (NOT ELIMINATE, AS THAT CAN'T BE DONE) that figure. Are you willing to break the country to do this? Apparently, the Ds are. But what is the cost of that? GWB made massive expenditures for treatment of AIDs, Malaria, etc. More than any administration in history by a very large margin. How many thousands of lives were saved (albeit not Americans) as a result? Will China step into this role once America has been totally destroyed by liberal debt? 45,000 is a very small number out of 300M, and I doubt if many countries can match that tiny proportion. I don't know of any that could.