SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (806200)9/11/2014 2:14:15 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583684
 
That's fair enough. You think a small percentage increase in the number of uninsured was worth upending the best health care system in the entire world.

'The best health care system in the world' which only the privileged few could afford.

And btw, the Germans and Scandinavians would argue with you as to who has the best health system in the world.



To: i-node who wrote (806200)9/11/2014 2:41:03 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583684
 
Inode,
You think a small percentage increase in the number of uninsured was worth upending the best health care system in the entire world.
One of the measures of a successful health care system is how many people have access to it.

Have you seen the movie Elysium? (I haven't.) The movie depicts a future where, among other things, cancer is cured, and humanity has the most ideal health care system ever developed. Only problem is that it's only available to the elite few who reside on the orbital colony called Elysium.

Yeah, the movie is left-wing propaganda, just like most everything coming out of Hollywood, but it's also an extreme example of how having the "best health care system in the world" means nothing if it's only available to the select few.

Of course, America is far from that dystopian future, but I wouldn't dismiss the goal of increasing the number of insured so easily.

Tenchusatsu