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: Lane3 who wrote (24354)	7/26/2012 8:13:21 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Which is all the more reason to do only what is necessary and keep their paws out of the rest. " As mentioned, the Interstates, railroads, NASA, pure research, etc, etc, etc. None "necessary", all of huge benefit to our society and our prosperity. Here is one I just heard on NPR on the way into work (and back on topic). Scientists have long searched for a prescription to treat addiction. But companies were hesitant to develop one. Charles O'Keeffe is the former president and CEO of Reckitt Benckiser, the company that developed Suboxone. "There's not much money to be made in it," says O'Keeffe. "This is not a disease space that a lot of people want to treat." The US government stepped in and partnered with Reckitt to bring the drug to market in 2000. The whole article here: npr.org If you want to correct me, I suggest you write something that contradicts what I wrote. Suggest away. I'll post whatever I feel like at the moment. As will you.

To: Lane3 who wrote (24354)	7/28/2012 3:46:51 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

At issue is it sticking to what it needs to do and does best. Time and time again objections to expansions of government in to new areas, or to greatly increase what it does or controls in old areas, are treated as if they where objections to the very existence of government. Every new expansion is presented as some simple, often obvious, "common sense" "balance", and objections are just anti-government "ideology"... If with generation after generation, of government expansion, it still hasn't grabbed the low hanging fruit, the thing that it needs to do, or does best, or does with the least net cost or collateral damage, then it would seem either "its all low hanging fruit", and any conceivable expansion of government is almost automatically good (which I would strongly reject, and which I think few would try to defend), or there is little reason to think that each new government expansion is likely to be aimed at the low hanging fruit. Personally I think it gobbled up most of the low hanging fruit long before I was born, and if there is any left, it doesn't seem to have a clue in terms of directing its efforts towards that fruit.