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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (378946)	4/18/2008 11:29:10 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576883

You are joking, of course. The number of uninsured and underinsured exceeds the 40 million most often quoted. You totally don't know what you're talking about. The oft-cited 40M figure includes both those who are covered under state Medicaid programs AND those who opt to have no insurance for themselves, even though they could afford it. The number of kids 20 or 23 years old who are uninsured because they don't feel they need it is staggering. This is typical of the Left, using whatever methods they can to inflate the figures. Now, if you want to talk about "underinsured", that opens up an entirely new can of worms, since adequately insured to me may be underinsured for you. The biggest benefit to having insurance isn't the coverage itself, but it is the repricing that occurs as a result of the coverage. So, every person ought to have insurance and ought to insurable. You may well consider ME to be underinsured because I have $5,000 deductible. Yet, that is a choice I make (because I don't believe in having insurance for expenses I can easily handle on my own. The 40M figure is indisputably wrong (this figure originated with the Census Bureau and lacked proper statistical analysis). The number who remain uninsured for a full year (i.e., who are not transitioning) is about half that -- estimated at 21M, again, with many of those simply choosing not to be insured. When you get down to it, the numbers who don't have insurance because they truly can't afford it are very, very small. The entire problem is totally overstated. While it is true that there needs to be some legislative action on portability provisions, and perhaps to fill a very small gap in the Medicaid coverage, to suggest it is 40M is just total ignorance of the situation. Throwing in the term "underinsured" makes me think you have bought the liberal line without even a minimal understanding of the subject -- because only the most basic coverage assures patients of having excellent health care at repriced cost (which may not be "free", and I can think of no reason it SHOULD mean "free").