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 (14153)	3/9/2010 10:30:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

You continue to post unsubstantiated conjecture This is an ad hominem attack. If you cannot refute Tim's logic then no reasonable person will put much weight on your arguments.

To: Alighieri who wrote (14153)	3/9/2010 12:16:58 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The CBO says that the bill would insured 31M additional people. Which is essentially unsubstantiated conjecture. Its likely, like their budget estimates of the impact on the health care bill, or their statements about how many jobs where "created or saved", a matter of applying fixed rules which given certain input, spit out a certain output whether or not either the statements of input or output are realistic. Even if it is a serious unbiased analysis of the issue there is really no way to know enough before hand to get any specific number. Also the CBO's statements aren't even about the involuntarily uninsured, but just about the "uninsured", which would include people rich enough to easily buy insurance, or even to self insure on one end, and people who are eligible for government insurance programs but haven't signed up on the other (also people who are between insurance programs only for a short time, illegal aliens, etc.) .i suspect however that it is impossible to make policy for a segment of the population strictly without the entire country pitching in. Why? And if people are going to "pitch in", why does it have to be in a way that imposes such level of government control over their health insurance programs?