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: Brumar89 who wrote (15794)	3/31/2010 3:10:21 PM
From: RetiredNow	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Notice that it is Aetna, an insurance company, whom you trust to give an unbiased opinion. I think that fact alone shows everyone whose side you are on.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (15794)	4/1/2010 12:20:25 PM
From: Alighieri	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

as a result of the economy, healthy members who had been insured for some time but found themselves in tight economic circumstances were canceling their insurance. So you lose the subsidy that is keeping the premium affordable for the insurance pool. At the same time you had a third factor: Healthy young members, as a result of the economy, not entering the insurance pool. An obvious fallacy in the argument is that tbe revenue he bemoans as having been lost due to the economy is restored by the bill. Folks who lose their jobs will have to continue to buy insurance as will healthy young folks, even if subsidized by the state...that is still additional revenue coming into the insurance companies. Furthermore the bill adds to the insurance pool 32M additional insured people, all paying dues AND no longer using and ER for care, which will contribute to a reduction of the actual health care delivery costs from hospitals. Al