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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (9670)	2/18/2012 11:46:59 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

I don't want "Medicare on steroids", I think Medicare is already too big. But at least such a plan has the advantage of being constitutional (except perhaps under the most rigid interpretations of the federal governments constitutional limits, and while the courts may shift to a more limited interpretation, they won't shift that far, that ship sailed away before my parents were born) I don't know how else to cover everyone and not have the poor rely on the emergency room which results in poorer treatment and the same higher bills for the rest of us. Higher bills for the rest of us is rather questionable. Covered people get health care treatment more often. Even if the specific treatments non-covered people get are more expensive , fewer treatments can still result in lower costs/bills. I'm not up on Paul Ryan's plan.* becker-posner-blog.com reason.com blogs.forbes.com --- * Which isn't always the case, emergency room visits are more expensive, but free clinics just the opposite, even if your looking at resources used, rather than the price, and you where talking about bills for the rest of us, not total resources used), fewer