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: Steve Lokness who wrote (14314)	4/2/2012 12:40:57 PM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

You don't want to force people to have insurance - then who pays? The assumption that everyone should receive care no matter cost or who pays is in itself a problem. All forms of insurance have limits - so shifting the cost to the people at large will not make that go away and give everyone every coverage for every possible treatment. aka death panels - they already exist - called coverage limits. Government never does anything at lower cost - they are not built for competition and lowering costs - government is about growing costs and special favors to industries. So trusting the government to run anything related to spending is going to fail horribly. Government should be in the business of lowering costs - allow cross state insurance, imported drugs, tort reform, caps on medical lawsuits etc. It can help lower costs by tearing down mandates and rules and allowing competition in every form. Simply creating a massive document written by industry and lobbyists that no one in government read is not going to fix anything. Besides - the mandate will be found unconstitutional and the law will be effectively repealed and then perhaps they can get back on point and discuss ways to reduce costs.