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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (252343)	5/1/2002 8:48:44 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769667

Sorry, CBO estimates 400,000 workers will lose benefits - or not. Truth is NOBODY knows what this is going to cost. My bet is MUCH MUCH more then CBO is telling us: CBO estimates that the parity requirement could result in 400,000 fewer workers (800,000 fewer workers and dependents) having employment-based coverage than otherwise. But those estimates are highly uncertain because of the large margins of error in the study on which they are based. (Indeed, the possibility that the parity amendment would have no effects at all on the number of covered workers is within the margin of error.) Had those workers continued to have coverage, their premiums would have risen by $80 million, reflecting the additional costs attributable to mental health parity. By dropping coverage, the $80 million in mental health parity costs would be saved. CBO assumes that the affected workers would receive the equivalent of the premium contributions formerly made by their employers as additional non-health compensation. fmhi.usf.edu

To: DMaA who wrote (252343)	5/1/2002 9:51:53 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Lets find a Dick Morris Democrat to vote for. Dick Morris is an equal-opportunity whore. He'll take money from any Republicans or independents, no doubt! The only solution for nonsensical health insurance is to look where the money goes. Then, attack those costs that don't involve actual care from a provider to a patient. Unfortunately, attornies abound who get a percentage of the disability award, encouraging victims to be as disabled as possible. You then have all other participants in the gravy train, from expert witnesses, doctors and even insurance companies, who pass the costs along with a cost-plus kicker for the execs. For all of the above, "success" is defined as "squeeze as much as possible for as little effort as possible". No one, except the patient and the doctor, has the least concern for the health of those who pay the bill. This should be the reverse: health care providers paid on performance, and lawyers forbidden from charging except by the hour (like UK and elsewhere), that would take a huge percentage out. The triangulation in 20 years will be something closer to unified billing with insurance limitations. Some docs are paying $250,000 per year for practice insurance. I wouldn't doubt a quarter or more of the trillion dollars in medical costs are for legal, unecessary tests, excessive drug costs, all multiplied by insurance machinations.