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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (160313)	10/26/2008 7:14:53 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

OT OT OT That's a very good argument that I have never heard. Automobile insurance is a great thing because accidents WILL happen and rather then wasting everyone's time, and rather than fistfights over damages, insurance pays off. Anyone who has been in an accident knows this. If you are at fault, the insurance company takes charge. Likewise, if you're not at fault, you just get paid. This is true even in places NOT under "no-fault" insurance. It's a tremendous relief. I have very good medical coverage. It's a tremendous relief. A year ago I went from emergency room to hospital and afterwards to a cardiac center. There were all sorts of charges. Never mind that there wasn't anything wrong. The insurers paid some things, disallowed others, etc., and I did not have to get involved. I would have been happy to pay a good deal more just to extricate myself from the paperwork, but the insurance did all that. Whatever I paid myself was so incidental that I cannot even remember what it was. Years ago I used to have to haggle and bargain and complain because an insurance company would refuse to pay this or that. I usually won, but it was a waste of everyone's time to prove that, yes, when I dislocated my shoulder in bed at 2 a.m. I could not visit my orthepdic surgeon's office so I went to an emergency room. Compulsory national insurance would force everyone to streamline all this crap.

To: neolib who wrote (160313)	10/27/2008 2:24:04 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

What is your view about compel and auto insurance? I don't have an issue with compelling people to be responsible for the accidents they cause. Using the same roads with bad drivers, I'm a potential victim of their bad behavior, so I'm OK mandating financial responsibility. So far, no over weight smoker has put me in the hospital with their bad habits. The private market does a really good job providing auto insurance even if it means that the worst risks can't get car insurance they can afford, even with state funded high risk pools. Some people should be priced out of driving. As a good driver, I can get very good, cheap auto insurance because of the competition for drivers like me. Indeed, one of the biggest problems with private health insurance is that unlike auto insurance, you are NOT currently compelled to get it. You aren't compelled to get health insurance because unless you have assets you aren't compelled to pay for your own health care. Anyone with assets to protect gets health insurance and those with few assets and low risks don't bother, because they are better off without it. What you want to do is create a situation where people who would be better off without health insurance are forced to pay in to it. Everyone has limited resources, we all make decisions to use our resources based on what is most important to us. What those who want to push universal health insurance on the country is that they want to push what they think is important to them on someone else and get that person to use their limited resources to fund their needs. Food, shelter and education for the young wage earner might be far more important than health insurance. Should that person be compelled to put health insurance in front of those needs? I don't have a problem making people responsible for their own healthcare, but I think they should be free to choose how they will do that, as I think people should be free to choose how they fund their own retirement. If I want to forgo health insurance, go on a strict diet/exercise regime to increase the probability of good health and then put aside a bunch of money for that unknown lightening strike of some rare unavoidable disease or accident, then I think I should be free to do that. Frankly, I don't think I should be compelled to be in the same risk pool with a bunch of morbidly obese smokers anymore than I should be compelled to be in the same risk pool with alcoholic drivers! What is interesting is that you can see the problems inherent in compelling people to buy the insurance provided by the SSA but not in compelling people to buy some government provided healthcare. As I see it, your biggest issue with compelling people to buy SS is that it hits the poorest hardest because it is a "tax" paid on the first dollar of income and the money from the premium payments gets mingled in with general tax revs and therefore becomes a budget football. How would government provided health insurance be any different? BTW a little history, SS when instituted was optional, it was also 1.5% of income. Now even the Medicare portion is higher than that and almost completely unavoidable.