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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (118957)	8/20/2009 12:06:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542599

There's one thing from this Wall Street Journal I just don't get. How can you demand that health insurance companies insure people with preexisting conditions? That's demanding a company to lose money. As I understand those conversations, that's not a controversial item. The insurance companies have, in effect, agreed to that on the condition of the mandate. They get a largish pool of new and younger customers. I also think, but don't know for certain, that that provisions is now in place for auto insurance. And another thing; how in the world do you require people to have health insurance or pay a fine? Those who don't, get fined; just as in auto insurance. As for poverty issues, the stipends are supposed to take care of this. They are, in my view, always too low. But the logic is there. I think of this in terms of two populations: the folk with too much income to qualify for medicaid but too little, in their own view, to pay for health insurance; and folk who could afford it but don't (mostly younger taxpayers). The first population will get much more of a stipend--as I recall eligible for such up to three times the poverty level subsidies in some of the bills. The second will simply get a requirement.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (118957)	8/20/2009 5:50:24 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 542599

There's one thing from this Wall Street Journal I just don't get. How can you demand that health insurance companies insure people with preexisting conditions? That's demanding a company to lose money. I've wondered about this too. I suspect that it will be very expensive, depending on the condition. If this bill does pass without a public option, it wouldn't surprise me if premiums in general go up considerably, with this as one reason cited for it, despite any additional people paying for insurance. If the insurance companies don't have have to compete with the government, I would not spend too much time worrying about their profits, unless of course there are some caps on premiums, which I doubt. In fact, I would buy their stock. It will be virtually a license to mint money, IMHO.