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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (558563)	4/2/2010 11:04:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576360

when you provide universal care the care received by the nation at large will be improved and that's good. Maybe, maybe not, but that has little to do with the issue. "Providing universal care" is generally not providing health care at all, but rather providing insurance, and even if you have fully socialized medicine your creating a system to provide health care, the creation of the system would not be the provision of care. The provision of care would be when a doctor or someone else actually provided the treatment. Systems do not equal care, insurance does not equal care, so obviously systems of providing insurance do not equal care. Selective coverage is rationing Not covered does not equal not receiving care. And even not receiving or receiving less care only is rationing in the broadest sense of the word, in the sense that some factor limits the allocation of scarce resources. Since health care is indeed a scarce resource any system will ration health care in that sense.