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: Road Walker who wrote (9236)	9/10/2009 8:10:14 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

i thought accepting all conditions was already a given by insurance. i also believe some type of cap for extreme costs has been resolved so no person has to go broke. that is nowhere close to being open for discussion

To: Road Walker who wrote (9236)	9/10/2009 8:44:27 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

I think the author focuses too much on diet. But there is a good point. By making insurance companies accept all regardless of pre-condition and not throwing folks under the bus when they get sick you will allign insurance company interests with keeping their customers healthy. I'm not buying that. Sooner or later most people are going to get some disease that is expensive. If nothing else gets you first, you will get cancer, for example. The only place where preventive care including diet will save money is if individuals with chronic, costly problems like diabetes postpone getting it so the insurance companies don't have to pay the price for as many years and those chronic, costly problems are largely diet related. Diet is something insurance companies have limited ability to influence let alone control. You've championed this notion before but have yet to explain by what logic you conclude the prevention will help the bottom line.