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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (36202)	4/25/2014 7:21:14 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

She said she was single. Why in the world would she get family coverage? Could she even get family coverage were she dotty enough to request it?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (36202)	4/26/2014 12:16:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Discriminating by various risk factors is largely what insurance is about, and its more positive then negative despite the reaction you can get in some circles by "discriminate based on gender..."

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (36202)	4/26/2014 1:33:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

There is a fallacy in that logic, and it is here: "Everyone is in, everyone pays a fair rate, and we have enough money in the system to take care of people when they need it.” This is just not a correct statement. There is nothing "fair" about having a 27-year old pay double for health insurance so that people who are 55 can have less expensive insurance. The 27 year old receives no intrinsic value for having paid double. And when he becomes 55 he will be far worse off as a result of it. That he doesn't realize he is being taken advantage of yet is beside the point.