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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (20950)	12/22/2003 5:59:42 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793698

If states won't generate more revenue, more low-income children, most of them in working families, won't have their earaches treated before their hearing is endangered. Not having raised children, I struggle to appreciate some aspects of this problem. It would seem to me that just about everyone could afford medical care for their kids, unless of course the kid develops some really serious problem like diabetes or leukemia, which are rare. My frame of reference is that I can easily count on one hand the number of times I saw a doctor as a child, at least as a child old enough to know I was seeing a doctor, which was pretty memorable at the time because doctors came to see you rather than the other way around. I saw a doctor to have a mole on my face removed, when I had a bad bout of hives, and when I had pneumonia. I never saw a doctor when I had measles or mumps. And certainly never for a cold. I can't remember where I got vaccinated. It wasn't at a doctor's office. Probably at school. Seems to me that much of the increase in health care costs is a function of an increase in expectations of care and, therefore, utilization. Essential health care costs for an average child should be affordable for almost everyone.

To: LindyBill who wrote (20950)	12/23/2003 2:00:51 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793698

Makes the idea of US Taxpayers Group Insurance Rates look better and better, doesn't it? Each person or couple could chose the level of insurance they wish to pay per month, and if expenses were not covered, then they as a family would be liable for the remainder of the cost. They could gamble....and possibly lose. OR They could pay a larger premium, and most actual out-of-pocket costs higher than say from $10,000-$50,000 a year, depending on income, would be covered. The problem is, that many people want something for nothing, and want only the best medical care, but want someone else to pay for it. Responsibility....a word that many don't know the meaning of...