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 (36516)	5/5/2014 1:59:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> Unlikely. Technological and economic progress will probably continue. Look at the UK's National Health service, actual socialized medicine. Was its creation more negative than not? I think we'd agree that it was. But if you were sick would you rather have British health care in 1947 (the year before the NHS's founding) or 2014? As we transition to ever-more government control (and government controlling purse strings like subsidies and Medicaid implies greater government control) the pressure will mount to spend less. And like it or not, spending is key to innovation. Not WILD spending, of course, but I've never really seen government spend money more efficiently than the private sector. This may be a first, but I remain doubtful. What separates us from NHS or anyone else is the lack of price controls. We are price controlled on more than half the health care economy, of course. But we still have [had] a functioning private sector, although pricey. NHS and others have long been the beneficiaries of our technological progress. I think they'll step up to fill part of the void, but not all of it. I think it would be very aggressive for the Court to throw out the entire law by deciding the origination clause was violated. Yet, it is clearly what SHOULD occur if anyone gives a damn about the Constitution.