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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (129197)	3/5/2001 5:55:21 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert, re: "not true at all. Institutional distribution channels are competing with individual policies in a semi-free market and judged on service/price basis. Those types of policies are also helping to control overcharging from medical service providers." It's "judged" on the basis of the benefit to the employer, not the end user. And no product can ever evolve to it's potential in cost/value if the ultimate decision maker isn't the end user. It's impossible. In any competitive marketplace, products evolve to form the best solution at the lowest cost. The folks that don't present the best solution, or at least a niche solution (at a higher price) that appeals to a minority, go by the wayside. When you put a decision maker (with different motivations) between the seller and buyer, the free market system breaks down. Consumers are now conditioned to accept medical insurance as a "free benefit". 90% no longer have a choice, you get what big brother employer decides is best for you. It's "free", so you accept a lousy product. If, instead of this "benefit", folks were given enough additional pay to make their own decisions, the insurance companies would really have to compete on the basis of the ultimate end product/service that they provide. The end user could choose a high end plan or a cut rate plan. Providers would have to struggle with the trade off's, all the stuff regular companies do with their products. "If I add this benefit, will it attract enough business to offset my cost, or how can I make it cheaper so that I still make a profit?". When their service was lousy, they would lose customers. Albert, it's basic capitalism, it works. We've created a nightmare system where everybody's best interests are in conflict. You are just used to health care being "free", so you can't see that you are getting a lousy product at a high price. Do you want your employer to make your purchase decisions on food, furniture, housing? Would that increase your selection and lower your price? John