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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1109)	4/13/2006 12:26:33 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You are reading too much into my example. The concept Miniter suggested is that a major medical might get as low as $40 per month if the worst meddling is stripped away. I extended that to the specific results of offering insurance at the same price. It would be unwise to compare the two situations and declare them the same. However one can draw from them similarities. Aged people who are not eligible for subsidized healthcare might sign up for cheap major medical insurance just as seemingly invincible young men will sign up for cheap full featured insurance. As Miniter pointed out, comparing mandated health insurance is not the same as mandating automobile insurance. Only drivers are required to have auto insurance, and they are only required to insure for damage to others. To say that only breathers are required to have health insurance, and that they are only required to insure for their own losses is an unfit comparison.