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 (2663)	11/2/2007 1:19:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Why aren't you equally cynical about the government?

To: John Koligman who wrote (2663)	11/2/2007 5:19:10 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

So because government has in fact screwed you over, we should theorize that they will do a better job of protecting you in the future? Syllogistically that does not work. "I assume you believe that what you are proposing will also fix the 'cherry picking' and 'pre-existing' condition problem?" The pre-existing condition problem evolved from the customers cheery picking the timing of their coverage problem. The government solution to that was tried by Romney in Massachusetts and residents are nowhere near 100% covered even though required to be by law. If health insurance were de-Balkinized the pre-existing condition problem would be reduced because the costs would decline. Having been an insurance administrator I can tell that there are some serious distortions in the market. At one time I was able to offer you males full insurance coverage for around $18 per bi-weekly payroll. Would it surprise you that most of them accepted it? Male actuarial rates don't catch female until around 50 - 60. Instead when forced to subsidize the young women who have much higher medical risks young men generally elect no coverage. While you may this a reason for socialized medicine, I see it as an opportunity to fix a broken government system. "I don't believe private companies will do what is in the best interest of the 'insured' unless the government steps in..." Corporations respond to market forces a million times faster than governments do. It is in their best interest to act as if they care because losing customers hurts the bottom line. Disgruntled government employees never leave and never stop hurting people. "based on what is happening currently..." So because governments are screwing up the system we need to allow them to destroy it? I don't believe that is a reasonable opinion and I seriously doubt you do either.