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: Maurice Winn who wrote (14885)	3/20/2010 8:51:46 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Ok, point taken. Of course, you have given extreme examples to prove your point. I don't think anyone suggested broadband, or electricity or food for that matter, should be free. However, let me address your point on cost, which is a good point, which we all care about, especially in this awful economic times. I have two points to make here: 1) Cost is a matter of priorities. What is more important, spending $1 trillion to fight wars and then do nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or spending $1 trillion to nation build right here at home? What is more important, spending $1.7 trillion on Bush's tax cuts or spending $1 trillion to ensure universal health coverage? It's all a matter of priorities. The GOP likes to spend money too, but they just spend it on different priorities. 2) Investment in key things is the key to our economic prosperity. I am a big believer in our government investing in strategic things like broadband to ensure our continued economic superiority. The FCC's plan to push average broadband speeds from 4 Mbps to 100 Mbps in the US is absolutely critical, for example. We are ranked 27th in broadband, when we invented the Internet. That's pitiful. I'm also a big believer in our government investing in health care for similar reasons. All the major studies say ACCESS to health care is the critical factor in increasing average lifespans. Every year lost due to inadequate access to health care means loss in economic output for those people. That costs our economy real money. I haven't done the math, but if you think about all the time lost to people being sick or dying because of lack of health care, then universal health care starts to make sense. If you also start to realize that health care expenses are the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in this country, then it also starts to make sense. I haven't seen a study, but I'd bet that if an economist ran the numbers, they'd find that the cost benefit analysis favors mandated universal coverage. So consider it an investment, not an expense for our economy.