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: Alighieri who wrote (14077)	3/7/2010 2:04:44 PM
From: Murrey Walker	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

…And, if you want to focus on hyperbole, there's plenty of that on the opponent's side, Al, you write with a degree of credibility. That's good. However, you keep coming back to your party's talking points, and wind up deriding whoever you're having an exchange. Seems to me, you're not really interested in exchanging thoughts and ideas, as much as proving to the "other side", your way is better. Don't you think we have enough of that going on right now in D.C.?

To: Alighieri who wrote (14077)	3/7/2010 7:04:33 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I know I never meant it to describe someone who can afford health care out of pocket...it feels weird to even have to explain that to you. The expression is widely used by proponents. Not knowing your particulars, I assumed you meant it the same way as your co-proponents. When a particular constituency has certain catch phrases. It's a reasonable assumption that those making the same points mean it the same way. If that's what you meant, OK. Look, i think you are creating a straw man...maybe not intentionally, but that's the effect of your narrow meaning of the word "access". I don't think I'm narrowing the definition. The word means what the word means. I think that the proponents are misusing it either to exaggerate their cause or because they are so wrapped up in the notion that everyone has the right to have their medical bills paid that they have lost the ability to differentiate between insurance and access. [Access is the requirement; insurance is one possible design for meeting that requirement. Failing to differentiate between requirements and design is a common failing, even among professionals.] When someone says there are 47 million people who don't have insurance and then go on to say that 47 million people don't have access to the health care system, they are glossing over the fact that the 47 million number includes those who are uninsured by choice, those who are already covered by Medicaid but haven't bothered to sign up, and those who are briefly between policies, for example, all of which clearly already have access by any definition of the word. Equating the lack of insurance with lack of access to health care is a logical fallacy. Here's the first example that popped up from Google: Bill Moyers quoting the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: "The uninsured suffer from negative health consequences due to their lack of access to necessary medical care. "