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: i-node who wrote (6342)	3/13/2009 2:38:49 PM
From: John Koligman	2 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

"They're in business to make a profit, and the argument that they will ignore their profit motive to cause patients harm is just absurd." Yep - and if they have figured out it's better for THEM to pay for getting your leg cut off instead of paying for preventive care across a large group of patients, well, 'it's just business'... "But in the insurance business -- and virtually all businesses based on risk -- the point is not to attract the most customers but rather the best ones. As businesses, not charities, insurers need to attract healthy customers, not sick ones, said David Knutson, a former insurance executive who studies the industry's economics for the Park Nicollet Institute, a health research organization in Minneapolis. As a result, experts say, insurance executives usually think twice before bolstering their diabetes benefits, for fear they will attract the chronically ill. In a 2003 survey, 87 percent of health insurance actuaries queried by Mr. Knutson said that if they were to improve coverage with richer drug benefits or easier access to specialists, they would incur financial problems by attracting the sickest, most expensive patients. 'Insurers are as eager to attract the chronically ill as banks are interested in loaning to the unemployed,' Mr. Knutson said. 'The chances of losing money are simply too high.' The ironic thing about that last sentence is that when banksters lose money, we bail them out...

To: i-node who wrote (6342)	3/13/2009 3:30:16 PM
From: John Koligman	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

OT "Sort of like Obama himself -- he was the most articulate candidate and that's why he won the election -- that doesn't mean it was the best thing for the country (which by now, it is starting to become clear his election was an absolute disaster for the country)." Yeah, all the Repubs are blaming Obama for the stock market crash. Here's a tidbit you might enjoy... To: Jim McMannis who wrote (189140) 3/7/2009 10:44:13 AM From: ajtj99 17 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 190548 The NASDAQ was 3500 when BUSH was elected in Nov. 2000. By April 4 it was 1619, almost a 55% drop. If you want to do your 6-months out thing the NASDAQ was almost 4000 in May 2001. By Sept. 24, 2001 it hit 1387, a 60% drop from election day. Do I think BUSH had anything to do with this? No. Do I think Obama has anything to do with the current drop? No. The business cycle doesn't care who is in the office of the President. McCain, Ron Paul, or Paris Hilton wouldn't have made a difference in the stock market if they had been elected.