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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robert b furman who wrote (5178)	1/28/2003 12:51:08 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25522

OT Yes, it is a difficult balance. As an employer, you can't do much about the fact that physicians have little incentive to save money, and many powerful incentives to spend maximally. If there is a bad outcome, and I haven't done every test and procedure that is available (whether or not the medical literature says they are useful), then I am at risk of being sued. It isn't unusual to get sued, even if everything conceivable has been done. To many people, a bad outcome equals malpractice. The insurance companies have control of managing the suit, so they will frequently settle and pay; the practical path of least resistance. Can you pass the excess costs of drug abuse on to addicted employees? That is, higher copays/less benefits/lower max payouts, to smokers? Not sure if that is legal. Many employees won't hire smokers; this is illegal, but impossible to prove. Tobacco is harder to quit than cocaine. I've seen people relapse after a decade of abstinance; any stress (divorce, money problems, etc.) puts them at risk.