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: Katelew who wrote (3851)	1/12/2008 8:11:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

My working assumption has been that folks would VOLUNTARILY enroll their children because they would want them insured with regard to catastrophic illnesses. OK. "Mandate" means "voluntary." How silly of me not to realize that. <g> I suppose volunteering would be a function of how pricey it was. If it were cheap enough, I imagine that most would enroll their kids. Lots of people buy life insurance for their kids and that makes no sense at all. and is cheaper still if everyone is in the actuarial pool A pool of kids would be relatively cheap, at first. Kids don't typically need catastrophic insurance. Over time, though, it would get more expensive. You may recall, well, not personally recall but have read, that in the early years social security was cheap because there were few retirees relative to the number of employees paying in. Now the ratio isn't so friendly. definitely wouldn't want some kind of punitive, forced-entry, big brother type program to emerge What would likely, almost surely, emerge is comprehensive insurance, not just catastrophic. I can't imagine we could avoid pressure to cover well baby treatment and little Johnny's earache. Watered-down is not a stable state in (human) nature.