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: Road Walker who wrote (4223)	2/3/2008 6:41:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

"The uninsured person, who presumably has the least money, pays about 7 times the "real" cost. Even if they give them a 20% discount it's still 5 times the "real" cost." My original point... Hospitals sock uninsured with much bigger bills ...and I allowed for a discount. You are being disingenuous. Which is pretty much standard procedure. Well, here we are. I've been arguing that the uninsured don't PAY five times what is paid on behalf of the insured. I've gone over and over that point. I even put the distinction between being billed and paying in caps for you to focus our difference of opinion. Now you seem to be suggesting that I'm being disingenuous for not recognizing your discount. But I was. The discounted rate you cited was 5X. Your undiscounted rate was 7X. I gave you the benefit and argued against the five, not the seven. Further, you're saying that your point was "bills" and simply "bigger" ones, not 5X payments. Who is being disingenuous? Your original assertion is quoted at the top of this post. I reminded you of it frequently as we went back and forth. If you wanted to adjust your assertion, you had plenty of opportunities to do so instead of digging in. As for your revised assertion, yes, the uninsured get bigger bills. Like, duh. But then, so what...