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: Lane3 who wrote (129993)	2/2/2010 7:03:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

"If we're going to have an subsidized insurance scheme that everyone can join, I think it would be best if its catastrophic insurance." I don't think that's workable. Folks in that position are already out of money. They may eventually run out of money paying for the uncovered treatment, but that wouldn't be the case if this catastrophic cost was covered. People don't tend to be out of money the moment they get diagnosed with cancer or AIDS, they run out of money over time. The treatment for this ongoing horribly expensive conditions would be covered by the catastrophic plan. but less risk than what I called the "utterly uninsurable." Maybe you could expand on what you mean by that term. I thought that was who we where talking about, the catastrophe (of getting AIDS or cancer or whatever), would be what would make them uninsurable. But if you have this universal catastrophic coverage they would be covered for this condition by it. If they aren't unisurable, and feel they need insurance (beyond this catastrophic coverage, and I don't really think that such coverage is really needed) than why don't they just get insurance? I can see if their poor, but that's more of a Medicaid thing rather than something new.