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: Road Walker who wrote (23935)	7/1/2012 10:53:45 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

Risk. When you already have a condition your not at risk of that condition you have it already. Covering it isn't insurance, its charity if voluntary, mugging someone for the money if it isn't. Insurance as a business is about measuring risk categories and basing evaluations about coverage and rates on that. Its not just about forking over money. Its not government <g>.

To: Road Walker who wrote (23935)	7/1/2012 1:55:48 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> The "essence" of insurance is spreading risk. Of course, that's what it is SUPPOSED to be. But when you have a law that says, "You need not buy insurance today -- you can opt to pay a tax that is far less expensive than insurance, and IF you get sick, you are guaranteed the ability to obtain coverage at that time" -- that is not risk management. What that does is to encourage people to go without insurance and that is precisely what is going to happen. If I can pay a few thousand dollars a year in taxes rather than $15K/year in insurance premiums, yet be assured that if get cancer I can take a policy that covers my treatment, am I really going continue paying the insurance premiums?