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: TimF who wrote (130061)	2/4/2010 4:30:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541997

The medical costs for dealing with the catastrophic illness would be covered. Perhaps we have different frames of reference here. I'm assuming a deductible of maybe $10,000 a year. Plus perhaps the cost of a separate health care policy on the rest of the family. That will run most families out of money in a few years if not sooner. Maybe you have some other figure in mind or some other policy structure. so it would probably not be directly from the medical costs, but rather because the condition might cause them to be unable to work. That seems to me a distinction without a practical difference. If he can't work full time because he's spending tim on a dialysis machine for hours on end and his family ends up on the street because they can't pay the rent, I'm hard pressed to dismiss that as an unemployment issue.