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 (130121)	2/4/2010 4:39:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542002

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. Most families have an income a lot larger than that. It will hurt sure, but not necessarily run them out of money. If your so concerned about running them out of money, than you could make the coverage for treatment of the condition, have a lower deductible after the initial year of treatment for it. Or other tweaks could be used instead, its not like the idea was was talking about was very specific/limited. It was very general. 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. The difference may not practically matter that much for the bankrupt person, but it does in terms of laws and institutions to deal with it. Paying for giving people an income when they are unable to work, isn't health insurance even by the broad extended use of that term common today (that counts plans for doctor visits and such as insurance). It could be considered "disability insurance" and "unemployment insurance", but not "health insurance". Saying it isn't a health insurance issue isn't dismissing it. We already have Social Security Disability payments, and the problem is indirectly dealt with by welfare programs and unemployment insurance. If you think they are too miserly they could be increased. Not that I'm arguing for the increasing them. I'm just arguing against trying to form a health insurance system to deal with payments for non-health expenses of people who can't work because of health related reasons.