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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46138)9/29/2010 7:27:04 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
That's a rather simplistic analysis. Assuming that the only actual changes are what's directly required or forbiden, then you can see if it helps or benefits each person, but its likely that much of the good and harm will be from the cost of the spending from the program, and from the incentives it sets up.

For example, annual limits. All else being equal I'm better off with a policy with no such limits. But removing such limits raises the cost of providing insurance, both directly (since it exposes the insurance company to more risk which they have to cover), and probably indirectly (by marginally pushing up the amount actually spent, with the increasing demand being a factor to increase prices (possibly) and total costs (almost definitely, since more would be done it would cost more).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News