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: Sr K who wrote (90954)	9/30/2007 6:32:33 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

or you make those who don't smoke and those who take actions to prevent disease pay for those who who have higher costs. I came to the conclusion that as a society we have to make some groups pay for others though, when I saw the premiums for young women age 17-34 as 4x that of men, with no ability to "opt out" of pregnancy coverage at that time (at least in CA). As a society we just can't make some 19 year old female pay some huge premium because she might get pregnant. that just rubs me the wrong way. Its a totally different emotion about smokers. With smokers you think "well they are adults and they made the decision" etc. With pregnancy being a necessary cost for the group with the lowest income (young women) it just doesn't sit right with me. But then once you subsidize the young women, then you've opened the box for all kinds of wealth distribution.