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: TimF who wrote (24235)	7/17/2012 6:34:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That's all well and good but I don't see anything in there that addresses my original point, which was: " Economics 101 tells us that to accomplish those two things directly—increased consumption by one group and lower prices—the government would have to take a third step: rationing." That's not true. The government can also impose price controls, which is mostly what it has been doing so far. The government has been using price controls in Medicare right along. OTOH, it has not overtly rationed much of anything. There's a lot of concern that some things have been put in place that would enable rationing. Some thing that their purpose is to ration. But so far it's just been price controls, and even those have been mitigated dramatically before implementation. Sure, we're starting to see shortages at the margins, but they are a side effect of the price controls, not of rationing.