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: Peter Dierks who wrote (24517)	8/16/2012 9:36:10 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I'm not focused on the specific example. I pointed out how your example was wrong, but they I gave others where your claim could theoretically become correct. The examples you add are others ones, but I've already mentioned people that might benefit from some form of political favoritism. I just don't see any reason why they would necessarily be Democrats (esp. but not only, if the Romney wins)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (24517)	8/16/2012 12:41:08 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What about the mother of the HHS Secretary? You are making an issue of a relative handful of people. Whatever system is in place, there will always be ad-hoc favoritism. As I wrote earlier, that's just noise, rounding errors. If the health care system were entirely private, there would still be favoritism. The only difference is that one system favors one cohort and another system favors a different cohort. It not recognizing the universality and inevitability of ad-hoc favoritism, it seems to me that you are objecting to favoritism not inn principle but only when it benefits the other guys rather than your preferred cohort.