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: Cogito who wrote (129980)	2/2/2010 6:26:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541938

If your asking for what would normally be considered reasonably priced (I don't see why they wouldn't offer you extremely expensive insurance, but perhaps regulations prevent it, or perhaps they just don't think there is a market at that very high price) insurance your essentially asking for a handout of some sort. Your actual risk (or at least the most informed perceptions of your actual risk as you related them) is high, in a way similar to that of a pre-existing condition. Its not quite the same, you aren't asking to insure your house after the house burned down, but your asking for the cost involved in dealing with your risk to be spread to other people. An argument can be made that it should indeed be more spread out. But that is hardly the default position. And if it is to be spread out it probably should be paid for buy the government (and thus the tax payer) which really spreads it out, rather than forcing the insurance companies to pay for it themselves. If we are going to spread risk, then you are imposing costs on other people. If we are going to do so, we should probably try to minimize the cost. If we're going to have an subsidized insurance scheme that everyone can join, I think it would be best if its catastrophic insurance. Not gold plated, cover everything, medical pre-payment plans, but insurance against the most serious of risks. Those are the risks that can crush people. We don't need to "insure" against an annual checkup, esp. if your talking about subsidized insurance. If we had such a plan, and you also wanted something more like the pre-payment plans we tend to call insurance, than if it wasn't for coverage requirements, it might be possible for you to get coverage that excludes your areas of heightened risk (which would be covered by the subsidized catastrophic plan only).