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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (129185)	3/5/2001 4:01:49 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert, re: "the result is completely opposite. Individual policies are subject to anti-selection and hence would be priced much higher to reduce the risk. Insurance companies would require more profit to achieve same risk/reward ratios. Add extra distribution costs and your price is through the roof." Wrong. You are looking at a system that took years to evolve into it's current level of inefficiency. Interjecting an employer into the middle of a buyer/seller decision will automatically make the product less conforming to the needs of the end user. It will have stuff the consumer doesn't want to pay for, and won't have stuff he is willing to pay for. And that makes it more expensive. When 100 million purchase decisions are based on the best cost/value equation, the product will by necessity improve. Why do you think our medical insurance / medical treatment system is so expensive and so inefficeinct? BTW, Dick Chaney is in the hospital emergency room with chest pain. John