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: John Koligman who wrote (17211)	4/22/2010 12:44:32 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

To: NOW who wrote (245128) 4/21/2010 9:14:53 PM From: The Reaper 4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 245207 Here's why health insurers have been getting sold through the last two weeks. Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so. They're gonna plug that little loophole that the insurer lobbyists put in the health care bill that didn't prevent insurers from raising rates. If this passes, that ought to put a dagger through the heart of the health insurance business. Hello single payer.

To: John Koligman who wrote (17211)	4/22/2010 1:35:11 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 42652

<<<But the United States as it slides further down the deficit gulch is spending more than $1 trillion a year on national defense despite fighting only two little wars against enemies with no ships, warplanes or tanks.>>> It is clear that we cannot raise tax rates on CEO's and other people with extraodinary income levels. <<<You don't see CEOs on foodstamps or Medicaid, they don't get Earned Income Credits or Pell Grants, and relatively few are drawing unemployment benefits. >>> Those nannies, domestics, and other servants have to pay their fair share. It is obvious.

To: John Koligman who wrote (17211)	4/22/2010 7:38:12 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

OT The Department of Homeland Security isn't defense spending as the term is normally understood. Much of it isn't even defense in a relative broad sense. Immigration is questionable as defense, as is customs, and to a lesser extent TSA although maybe a fraction of it could be counted. The Coast Guard would have defense role in full wartime, and a minimal defense role outside of full war, but its mostly about law enforcement and rescue. The Secret Service? Well protecting the president is to an extent defense, but I still find it questionable, and their other activities but their efforts against counterfeiting and money laundering? I don't thing so. The Directorate for Science and Technology? Other parts of the department are primarily law enforcement. If Veterans Affairs is defense its largely defense spending for past military efforts. "efense-related international affairs" is vague. Foreign aid and diplomatic efforts probably shouldn't count as defense. and defense portion of the national debt I'd like to see how they calculated that. Also if your going to measure things that way than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, CHIP, and other social programs would also be much more expensive. Gates could save billions in spending, for instance, by killing the trouble-plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter If the F-22 program had not already ended, or if we had a good alternative on the horizon, I might support that action at this point, with the problems the program has had. But we can't go without replacements for the F-15 and F-16 as our front line fighter and the F-22 is available in too low of numbers. Also canceling the program would severely complicate the defense situation of many of our allies who plan to buy the aircraft.