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 (4333)	2/6/2008 12:42:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Remember that insurance doesn't pay for the custodial care that the old elderly need, only skilled medical care. It's the cost of custodial care than leaves them destitute, not the medical care. They would be destitute when they reach the age of needing custodial care regardless of the presence of any cancer. So we may just be counting the elderly destitute, who more than likely have some cancer or another, as being destitute on account of cancer. My dad had prostate cancer. You can live for a decade with prostate cancer. I betcha just about every man in a nursing home has prostate cancer. And most of them would be destitute. If you have congestive heart failure you need skilled care, which is covered, so you are less likely to become destitute. And it's not cancer. Who knows what's in those numbers...

To: John Koligman who wrote (4333)	2/6/2008 12:45:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I can see people running out of a $1M policy on quickly when faced with cancer. I have seen $2M cropping up but many insurers are trying to stick with the $1M cap with the most likely reason to avoid paying large amounts for limited additional benefits. Many people would pay $100,000 for five additional months. Most would not if it were their own money. The disassociation from normal financial decisions caused by a third party payer system is part of the problem. I find it fascinating (and scary) that some people want to solve the problem by further removing people from the financial portion of the decision process.