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: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (40333)	9/30/2015 11:16:42 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Transcendental goods sounds like a category made up to justify more intervention. For almost all of human history people managed to get by without these specific "transcendental goods".

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (40333)	9/30/2015 11:50:45 AM
From: John Koligman	Respond to of 42652

"When business and government clash, the needs of citizens must prevail" In reading this thread over the years, I get the DISTINCT impression the opposite should be true.... John

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (40333)	9/30/2015 4:37:45 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

That was an interesting piece in several ways. Thanks for posting it. Canada has accepted health care in general as a transcendental good, a necessity that must be made available to all citizens. But it has also embraced the market as the appropriate venue for the purchase of necessary medical supplies. I didn't recall ever before having seen the notion of transcendental goods vs. common goods. Common goods and particular goods but not transcendental goods. Feeling ignorant, I searched and found that the Internet was ignorant, as well. I like the term, though. It's useful to have a label for what it describes. I have made a note of "transcendental goods." Also interesting was the split assignment in Canada. Never having thought of it before, I thought all health care in your country was in the transcendental category (except timely care, that is <gg>). Using the author's classification, I guess one could say that the US considers emergency care transcendental but not any other care that comes readily to mind. So it obviously doesn't need to be all or nothing. The differentiation might make a helpful metric for determining what to nationalize or what to mandate for coverage or what to ration. Or not. I'd have to think about that some more.