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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fatty who wrote (8058)	1/11/2003 11:13:00 PM
From: endless	Respond to of 306849

fatty, absolutely, sounds reasonable to me. It would warrant some independent analysis to ensure it is long term cost effective and in the best interest of consumers. Funding and support would probably follow. ..Actually, I do think that the American medical board is continuously reviewing "need", but they commission these studies.... However, I would not expect this to have a significant impact on the overall cost of health care in this country. As MSI stated earlier, Physician fees are not what is driving these skyrocketing costs. Perhaps a good argument for this case would be the fact that medical insurance premiums increased on the average about 20% this year (our premium actually increased 76%). The Medicare reimbursement schedule for physician's fees dropped 5.4% last year and is supposed to be cut another 4.4% in March. Practically all insurance companies use this schedule to gauge and negotiate their fee schedules. (Not much of a free market economy there btw., to quote your point.) Shouldn't costs go down?