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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (522257)	11/13/2012 9:27:22 AM
From: carranza2	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Depends on your point of view. If the only way someone could afford a serious, expensive surgery is to pay for it via insurance, it makes economic sense to pay the premiums. It's called risk sharing and it is eminently rational. Whether it should be mandatory is another question.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (522257)	11/13/2012 10:06:45 AM
From: skinowski	12 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

It's silly to buy insurance and pay for sickly people, administrative costs, false claims, excessive medical efforts, profits for the insurers, tax on the insurers, tax on all the people working in the insurance business. Golden words, Mq. The items you mentioned, plus the costs of complying with insane volumes of government regulation - is where most healthcare dollars are spent. I think there is need for "catastrophic" insurance. I'd say the deductible ought to be in the neighborhood of a persons monthly income - but the specific amounts should be up to individuals to decide. Such insurance would be, at least, real "insurance" - against devastating costs - rather than a fully prepaid service plan. Government takes a lion's share out of everything it touches. ObamaCare is not a solution - it is a symptom of a worsening problem.