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: i-node who wrote (16894)	4/17/2010 4:40:14 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

And this is why we have two very different parties in this country... a) The cost of the wars is a one-time expenditure while the cost of health care never ends; After almost 10 years of war and no end in sight, I've long ago stopped believing this is a one time expenditure. Then when you add in the fact that we spend almost $1 trillion per year on the military when we're not at war, your statement is ludicrous on its face. b) Providing free health care to those who don't want to pay for their own is a luxury; going to war was essential in the opinions of many; Health is a basic requirement as is food and air. Without it, lives are being devastated every day. Only a Republican would say that health care is a luxury. And only a Republican would say that war is essential. c) When you purchase health care for people who choose not to purchase their own, you create massive economic burden that government cannot afford. The 100s of billions spent on the wars is tough, but will not kill the country like the health care bill will. Again, the wars have already cost $1 trillion. The health care bill just passed lowers the spending curve by $140B in the next 10 years and $1 trillion the next 10 years. So your statement is not accurate.