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: bentway who wrote (199844)	5/3/2009 12:38:20 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Pre-existing condition treatment is indeed a major problem with the current system, but is totally unrelated to single vs multi-payer. It is related to the fact that the consumer can currently choose to be uncovered while healthy, then wants suddenly to have insurance when he walks in the Doc's office. The ONLY thing that governmental/single payers does is it forces everyone to be covered by shifting the source of money to involuntary taxation vs voluntary purchase of private insurance. The government could also enforce purchasing of private insurance. The fact that the taxation approach also has a very significant wealth transfer effect for many individuals is a separate issue. You can also explicitly do wealth transfer via taxation and use that mechanism with multi-payer private insurance. What the taxation mechanism does when coupled with single payer, is somewhat obscure the wealth transfer issue. Some people might see that as an advantage, but I don't I'm not opposed to wealth transfer as being part of the solution, I think it is inescapable, but I think it should be in the open and clear for all to see. Otherwise it becomes a cost issue in the long run.