"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:7556$4ff1c5ec
:

Han wrote:


The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or
penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able to
pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

I don't think it is. Now everyone will pay insurance premiums. For some
they will go up (mine, I think), for others they will go down: the
individual not currently able to get group insurance, not being able to
pay those rates, and therefore going bareback. The premium will go down
so now he's able to afford, or else grin. I think the system will
(should) get more equitable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid