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: Lane3 who wrote (8281)	8/14/2009 4:40:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

That variable had nothing to do with the comparison I was criticizing. To the extent the cost increase is so high as to make the insurance unaffordable, than at least for the purposes of this analogy it could be considered the same as not making it available. In fact in a sense that's what you do have with insurance for already wrecked cars and such. Offer enough money and you can get insurance, just not insurance that will pay you out more than you pay in. It identified the symptom (the bent fender), not the problem (the bad brakes). If your brakes are bad that is a similar sort of preexisting condition to the bent fender. Maybe its one that you can slip by unnoticed, but if it is noticed, the brakes wont be insured at an affordable cost until they are repaired or replaced. Often lines between "a wrecked car" scenarios, and "living in the flood plain" scenarios are blurred, perhaps esp. in medical care. Higher risk often comes from existing conditions. You can look at the same condition and call it "existing damage", or "higher risk", without being dishonest or incorrect.