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: Lane3 who wrote (14313)	3/10/2010 10:33:28 AM
From: HPilot	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

We need to stop this and then get rid of the Medicade and Medicare socialist programs. But we need to be sure those who have paid in get their fair share back.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14313)	3/10/2010 5:07:34 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Hi Lane, thanks for the reply. These are points I've heard before, so I want to address them so we can discuss more specifics. We are nationalizing the health insurance industry, at least a good chunk of it. Nationalizing industry is a fundamental element of socialism. I agree that nationalizing the health industry would be an example of socialism. However, exactly where in this bill do you see that? If they were to mandate that everyone buys into Medicare, then that would be nationalization, but this bill allows me to keep my current insurance with no changes at all. Plus, there is no public option in the bill. So how is this bill nationalizing anything? If there is no government insurance option to compete with private industry, then I don't see where the claims of nationalization or socialism are coming from. We are mandating that people have insurance, establishing health care as part of the commons. That's true, but I'm sure you know that our government also mandates that everyone have, at the minimum, liability insurance if you own a car and plan to drive it. The reason for this is that we don't want for folks without liability to hit us and not be able to pay for the damage they did. Do you consider that socialism or a bad thing? The health insurance mandate is for similar reasons. People are not getting care or are getting care for free, which raises rates for the rest of us, as they free ride on services we've paid for. So mandating insurance, ensures people pay for services received and get at least a minimum of care, so our society doesn't lose the benefit of their economic services from their illnesses or premature deaths. We are changing the nature of insurance, obviating the fundamental concept of insurance, which is underwriting. This is an interesting point. Would you please expand on this? I'm not sure I understand fully what you mean here.