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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (2612)	11/1/2007 2:00:18 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"My wife and I got coverage because we have no prior conditions or chronic conditions, but I'd be willing to bet if that were the case the situation would have been far different in 'qualifying' for coverage." FWIW - groups go through the same process. Actuaries adjust the quoted rates prior to accepting them. If the risk adjusted pool is uninsurable their application is rejected. Because of risk spreading, a certain number of expensive individuals can be included in a pool without causing an excessive cost burden on their coworkers. If you don't think I am paying for my coworker who is diabetic then you are wrong. People who have expensive conditions tend to be less employer mobile until the pool is entirely made up of expensive risks and the cost is so high even they quit.

To: John Koligman who wrote (2612)	11/1/2007 3:59:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

a self employed trader moving across state lines, I have no leverage in 'forcing' an insurance company to 'provide' insurance for me. That particular problem comes from having separate insurance regulations and separate programs from state to state. If states didn't bar insurance companies from selling any program in any state and you from buying them, then your portability problem wouldn't be a problem. Or if you stayed in a state that had a program you liked there wouldn't be a problem. Forcing a company in the new state to sell you insurance is a heavy-handed and IMO non-constructive solution.