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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (214998)	1/26/2007 12:43:36 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I was trying to get you to agree on a definition of single-payer. At any rate, to work out financially, a single-payer system would need everyone to be enrolled. Once again, complete nonsense. Say 40% of the country carries insurance, and their are 10 insurers. Those 10 insurers would be happy to have 100% of the country enrolled, and their is zero reasons why 10 insurers could work with 40% but could not with 100%. Similarly, if one insurer handled 100%, there is zero reason why a single insurer could not also handle only 40% if that was the only fraction insured. Please make an argument for why you are confusing fraction of the population covered with the number of insurance providers. I can't think of a single reason.