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: puborectalis who wrote (17440)	4/29/2010 2:46:29 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

woman cost the system more banned them, your reasoning

To: puborectalis who wrote (17440)	4/29/2010 3:00:58 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Hardly. He wasn't saying that early death is a good thing, only that since it saves money arguments that semi-totalitarian efforts against it are justified by the fact that the government spends money on health care are rather dubious. I agree, but I'd find the argument dubious even if it really did save money. The fact that the government chooses to subsidize something doesn't mean it appropriate to then control people's lives in order to reduce the cost of the subsidy. Smokers, over-eaters etc. are not costing the government money even if their actions do cause the government to spend more on health care. The government is costing the taxpayers money by its decision to provide the subsidies in the first place. If the government doesn't like paying so much for the subsidies it should just pay less rather than try to control everyone to an ever increasing extent.