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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (543265)	10/14/2013 4:47:56 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793552

The political gain from Obamacare will not come from the website issues. They will be fixed - and fixed long before any election. The political gain will come from the sticker shock coming from those who will not be heavily subsidized. This pain will extend to the election. Bob

To: skinowski who wrote (543265)	10/14/2013 6:19:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Recommended By prometheus1976 SirWalterRalegh Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793552

In New Zealand, we have had all that for free for decades! Not just the free suppositories. <Support me, the Prez will say, and y'all can live happily ever after, and everyone will get their amputations, tonsillectomies and free suppositories right on schedule!> Everything free. It's great, apart from the wait for years for non-emergency medical treatment. The quality of the standardized treatment is not so great too [such as for example external excision for hernia repair instead of laparoscopic repair]. It also means we can't get a new treatment such as Rituxan until the government departments have lumbered into gear and decided to fund it. Even if we pay ourselves, we can't get life-saving new treatment because it would be unethical [told to me by Tim Hawkins, a haematologist] as it would not be ethical to give one patient a life-saving treatment when the one beside them could not have it due to shortage of money. Medical "ethics" don't seem to affect the cash flow of the medical cartel. It's "unethical" for somebody to sell their kidney, but not unethical for a doctor to charge what the market will bear to install that "free" kidney into their captive patient. It's highly ethical for doctors, nurses, hospitals, lawyers and politicians to all get a piece of the $action in organ donation, but not for the donor to be paid. Because the donors are not paid, there is a desperate shortage of replacement organs. That's ethical in the medical cartel's ring-fenced rule book, and that of politicians who make the laws. The medical system for the impecunious is to be allocated medical treatment by the free system of government subsidy of approved doctors, and government-owned hospitals employing doctors and nurses directly. The poor are not provided with personal insurance as in Obamacare. There is a vast amount of time wasted waiting in crowds for treatment, or suffering at home on a waiting list. Those who can afford it buy their own insurance or simply pay cash on the barrelhead when they want treatment [that's my preferred method]. By maintaining good health, there isn't a lot of cash to pay as visits to medical people are infrequent and cheap. Low-risk people are best to avoid insurance generally. The Obamacare planners saw that coming so made it compulsory for low-paid but healthy people to buy insurance too, so that unhealthy and high-risk people can be subsidized. Those who believed Obama's claims that tax wouldn't be increased on those receiving less than $250,000 a year might be starting to think they were conned. As the Supreme Court said, Obamacare is a tax, so is okay, even though Obama and co claimed it is not a tax. The UK has the National Health Service. That's a similar mess. It's interesting going through the system there and works like NZ. Mqurice