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: Lane3 who wrote (3309)	12/17/2007 9:18:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<I'm on record as saying that our system would be healthier if employers had not started the health insurance benefit. >>> That is like throwing out the baby along with the bath water. Everybody wants health insurance and its benefits. I know you are a systems person and it would be natural for you to believe that a system can be designed to solve the problem. However, that may be in conflict with your libertarian side of personality (sigh!!)

To: Lane3 who wrote (3309)	12/17/2007 11:43:19 AM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Insurance companies... <<They pay bills, for example. Pretty obvious function. Someone needs to do it.>> And this is what insurance costs.. <<In 2006, the annual premium for a health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200.>> Message 24140225 And you continue to pay out of social security cheques when retired...over $200 per individual.. so that individual's claim might be denied, in order for the profit margins to remain in proper slot,...so that some 47 million might experience financial ruin if calamity strikes. No "Anecdotes" from this perspective <<gg>> all wealthy and semi covered here...we will leave those silly "Anecdotes" to Micheal Moore (and me ...Canadian system slag defender)LOL