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: bentway who wrote (215889)	2/1/2007 8:17:19 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

1. Attempting to cherry-pick and insure people who will be least likely to file a claim, and not insuring those who most NEED the insurance. If you have mandatory coverage requirements for individuals, that is each individual is required to get coverage just like the case for driving, then you can also mandate that every insurance company must take every individual. Further, you can mandate cohorts for pricing. You could even mandate a single cohort for all people. In which case, this issue is completely solved, TOMORROW, as Geode would save. Without resorting to a single insurance company. The reason this is so unpalatable is that politically it is far more fun to bash insurance companies than to entertain the idea of telling 100% of voters that they must get insurance, even if you also provide a workable plan for them to do so. 2. Attempting to deny coverage and payment of claims whenever possible, and devoting considerable time and expense to this effort. I have zero problem with the Government mandating that xyz all be covered. If Medicare covers xyz, why do you see it as a problem for insurance companies to cover xyz if required to by law? I don't see any problem. As you cover more of xyz, premium prices go up, but the same is true of the cost for Medicare to expand coverage. 3. Getting as many types of insurance mandated by law as possible, claiming it will lower premiums, which never happens. Work on making the insurance industry open & fair, and if money can be made, competition will enter and improve both cost & performance. Please make an argument for why competition will not work, or is poorly suited to working in this field compared to other fields. Ed is the only one who noted that for historical reasons, there has been significant market distortions in the insurance business, which leads to problems. Fine, address those issues to eliminate those problems. The solution is not to claim that zero competition is better then poor competition.