SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Knighty Tin who wrote (243733)6/3/2003 1:38:48 PM
From: yard_man  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 436258
 
>>I disagree pretty much across the board<<

I knew that ...

but private insurance is by no means "private." It is regulated heavily. There are all kinds of restrictions on what can be offered, who can offer it and how they can offer it.

The two "separate" systems are just part of one larger socialized system in my view. The whole thing is busted.

Who doesn't know someone that has had someone older in their family who has had to do something that was financially stoopit, so they could get moved to medicare.

Why should I pay for YOUR healthcare?? Why should you pay for MINE??

We don't even need a "right" to insure ourselves -- absent all the regulation -- a market would spring up which would have many more offerings available.

But then again -- I think social security isn't and should be stopped immediately.



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (243733)6/3/2003 3:13:09 PM
From: Mike da bear  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
Medicare most efficient? I guess it is because the goverment dictates the terms. For example an office visit will get reimbursed $15, well below true cost. Therefore hospitals/doctors have to charge more to insurance companies to make up for the losses on medicaid patients.

I guess it's not easy for hospitals to just say they won't take medicaid patients.

If medicaid were the only system then hospitals would just go bankrupt.