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 (135972)	4/6/2010 1:05:08 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543106

>>To assert that the cost of healthcare has no relationship to the cost of health insurance, as you appear to be doing I made no assertion that resembles the one I claimed you did. The closest I come to it is the implied assertion that health care costs are not the sole reason for differences in health care insurance costs.<< Well, there was a post in which you quoted Sam saying "it must be government regulations that push up the cost." And you responded, "Yes Exactly." Then there was some stuff after that, where you seemed to be confirming the view that government regulations were the explanation (not an explanation) for New York health insurance rates being higher than California rates, and disagreeing with me when I said that the cost of healthcare itself was the major factor. As to your other point, I'll accept that the size of the effect of each factor is the most important attribute to consider. And I already agreed that some kinds of regulation would tend to increase the cost of health insurance up. The specific case of fertility treatments strikes me as rather an egregious requirement. I really don't see how an inability to conceive children is something people should be insured for as a rule, since having children is entirely optional, and the lack thereof is not threatening to a person's health. BTW, I don't believe that healthcare costs four times more in New York than in California, but I do know that it does cost significantly more. Moreover, to use the example of Kentucky and New Jersey, yes, healthcare costs a lot more in New Jersey. Just allowing the guy in New Jersey to buy insurance from Kentucky wouldn't solve anything, because the costs of that care in New Jersey are going to be much higher, and the Kentucky company wouldn't have to adjust its rates accordingly. I'd rather see one set of regulations nationwide, myself. I'd rather see single payer. Hell, I'd be OK with a National Health Service. There would still be ways to encourage world class innovation and research, even under a real socialized healthcare system.