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: geode00 who wrote (215021)	1/26/2007 1:47:26 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You're still missing the point in its entirety. This isn't about making life good FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES. It's providing health care for all for the good of all. I understand that completely. What you fail to understand is that for-porfit systems are one way of achieving almost any goal. You have offerred zero reasons for why a non-profit system is going to work so much better in health care. I'm perfectly open to any well reasoned argument about why this would be the case. You provide none other than to rant about the evils of for-profit companies. My claim is that I see no reason why for-profit or non-profit, multi-player or single player is uniquely critical in health care as opposed to any other field. That is why I mentioned semiconductors & autos. But neither you nor Kate have made arguments for why you think for-profit, multi-party systems work better in those fields than in health care. I'd love to understand why you think this is the case? If taking on lots of customers with bad risk is a GOOD THING then why wait until it's mandated by law? Because they don't sign up until they need it. Why can't you understand something so basic?