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: Alighieri who wrote (15913)	4/1/2010 1:24:04 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

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. But since there is a mandate to cover preexisting conditions they don't have to continue to buy insurance. For many paying hundreds of dollars extra per year to the government in a penalty (and that's assuming its strictly enforced, if not it may be paying $0), and then signing up for a health care payment plan, once they have some expensive condition to cover will be a better deal than paying a few thousand per year to the insurance companies. And the mandate to cover preexisting conditions also works on the other side, raising costs for health insurance companies. Which will cause them to raise rates (unless the government puts in price controls which might just push the insurance companies out of business), which will cause even more people to think paying the penalty is the way to go, rather than paying for insurance.

To: Alighieri who wrote (15913)	4/1/2010 1:31:38 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

Theres no fallacy because 1) he's talking about something that occurred before the bill was passed 2) the provisions requiring people to buy insurance won't take effect for years in the future - pretending otherwise would be a fallacy 3) its logically unlikely that unemployed people will all buy insurance because they're legally required to - more likely they'll opt to pay the more affordable fine - pretending unemployed people will all simply buy insurance because the law says they have to is another fallacy no longer using and ER for care, which will contribute to a reduction of the actual health care delivery costs from hospitals. There's another fallacy: .... A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase. ..... Expansion of health insurance coverage on its own is likely to increase rather than decrease stress on overcrowded EDs. .... corner.nationalreview.com Message 26388407 Summing up, its your arguments that are fallacies.