A US National Health Care System? Message Board

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?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Road Walker who wrote (13400)	2/12/2010 6:51:33 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 42652

Nothing cyclical about that... unless we stop having babies for a while. Think about it. We add a fresh source to the pot--the healthy, young folks--to get premiums to go down. We now have an improved ratio of young/healthy to old/unhealthy, thus lower premiums. That becomes the new baseline. How is having more babies going to improve that baseline further going forward? Sure, we add babies, but former babies become sick and elderly so we are stabilized at the new baseline. There is no fresh source to add. Babies aren't a fresh source unless we start breeding at a dramatically greater rate. New babies don't change the ratio because former babies move into the old/unhealthy category. The only way we have left to improve the ration is to kill off the elderly and sick at a vastly greater rate. So, adding the young/healthy gives us a one-time improvement. After that, and from that baseline, rates continue to escalate the same as they did before we improved the ratio. All we get is a new, lower baseline. Nothing about that changes the escalation rate. It doesn't really solve the problem, just gives us a bit more breathing room before premium rates are back up to where they were and growing just as fast.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next