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 (212053)	7/24/2009 12:51:28 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>1) Insurance provides a method of spreading statistically unlikely risks across the population, so that rare but expensive hits can be handled by individuals affected.<< this is absolutely NOT what the current health insurance policy would do. it pretty much covers everyone for everything and places the bill on our broke grand children's back. >>2) It transforms large infrequent lump sum expenses into small monthly ones, and in particular allows one to take an early large hit prior to saving the money oneself.<< it gets people all lathered up about spending OPM on their own health care. bottom line - tanstaafl. someone has to pay. 100% of the cost. one way, or the other. i would have no problem with insurance as you described in #1, above. however, that means people pay out of pocket for their check ups and the like. this would not be more expensive, by definition (since the government won't lower costs). the people who use the services should have to pay for the services. we could set up a little medical welfare for the needy and we'd be good to go. the catastrophic insurance companies would be highly regulated so as not to screw the consumer and their power would diminish dramatically.