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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13800)	8/19/2004 4:45:58 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I submit that the reasons premiums have gone up as much as they have are 1) sharply rising malpractice insurance costs, driven in turn by our out-of-control tort system, 2) ever larger and more complex claims/payment bureaucracies in both the health care and the insurance industries, and to a lesser extent 3) ever advancing, but expensive, health care technologies. I have a friend who is a family practice doc. Back in the 1990's, her medical group went to a managed care system,which was the trend then. They have since pulled away from that model of health care as they found that the costs of the buracracy to operate the managed care system were prohibitive. It turned out to be more productive to allow the patients and their physicians make the health care decisions such as whether a particular test or specialist referral was needed.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13800)	8/19/2004 4:48:30 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 90947

The reasons that you put forth for rising healthcare seem reasonable to me. It does seem to me that the advent of high tech solutions for healthcare should in the long run lower the cost of care, similar to the way technology has made other sectors more productive. Since our income is severely reduced this year we had a choice. Either use savings to pay for health insurance premiums or keep the money in the bank as a hedge against any medical needs or other needs. We chose to do the latter. Orca

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13800)	8/19/2004 8:51:51 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 90947

I think the medical insurance industry has become part of the problem. Insurance companies have created a giant "game," which if you don't become adept at it they always win. For example, suppose that my doctor writes a prescription for 60 tablets with instructions to take two a day for 30 days and get two refills. For that I pay the three times as much as if he writes the prescription for 90 days at two a day. In the first case I get a 30 day supply and have to pay for two refills; in the second I get a 90 day supply for the same as the original. I have to be careful to tell the doctor how to write the prescription. Also, just to say that they offer coverage for things such as dental care, they pay a benefit that does not justify overhead cost of the paperwork required to pay that benefit. In other words, I would prefer that they not pay the benefit, but reduce the overall cost of general coverage. This is complicated, but the real reason for having insurance is to avoid being wiped out financially. If that is the case, I would be happy to cover 100% of the costs up to some level of my choosing, and then pay nothing after that. Such a scheme would dramatically reduce the amount of administrative overhead on both sides, would prevent financial ruin, and would result in lower total costs because I would be trying to minimize my out of pocket costs and the insuranc ecompany wouldn't have to process all those claims up to my deductible. Aside that from the unintended but sure consequences of allowing a trial lawyer to be a heartbeat away from the White House will be "We ain't seen nothin' yet!"