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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (90920)	9/30/2007 3:40:55 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

What sort of fool would pay $500/month for continual insurance without need? If there were no pre-existing clause, anyone with a brain would pay out of their own pocket for all small issues, then go buy insurance prior to their bypass surgery. They could buy the insurance for $500 then cancel at the end of one month. Or cancel whenever they work out that it is in their interest to cancel. Then next time they have need, repeat the stunt. People fail to realise what insurance is and is not: 1) It is a statistical averaging of unlikely but expensive risks which an individual cannot easily budget for and pay on their own, but for which actuarial proceedures can reasonably accurately handle for a sufficiently large group of individuals, such that each individual can budget and handle the combined risk. It of course adds a cost premium for providing this function. 2) It is not a source of wealth creation. 3) The indirection between payment (buying insurance) and consumption (getting treatment) encourages runaway cost growth. EDIT: The indirection of 3) also results in a built in conflict where the insurance co seeks to deny coverage in order to cap costs, since the motivation for capping costs from the consumers standpoint is non-existant, or more correctly, sufficiently obscure that most consumers ignore it, to their own long-term detriment. That is the problem with indirection. Short casual chains are easier for people to react to rationally, long casual chains allow dillusion to replace rationality. 4) It is not a means of wealth redistribution. Very little of the discussion on health care looks at the underlying issues of economics, instead, they mask these issues and chase their tails on "rights".

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (90920)	9/30/2007 4:55:25 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

It's because the preexisting condition is a risk predictor for conditions that can cost them hundreds of thousands and up. The solution is better risk pooling arrangements (which is the point of insurance, after all.....) Otherwise the companies will continue to cherry pick and utility of the current "insuraance" scheme will dwindle further....ultimately leading to voter's revolt and single payor/government run health care.