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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (2151)	9/27/2007 11:04:00 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"The bureaucrat may make the decision based on their narrow interests which occasionally align with public policy, the accountant based on profit maximization. I don't think it’s clear that making a decision based on profit leads to better long term health." (Italicized added) Accountants are not terribly insightful people as a rule. They do however generally grasp the concept that satisfied customers don't switch insurers. Companies wishing to maximize profits provide sufficient services to keep their customers satisfied. Basic economics predict this, and it is not far from historical truth. "Corporate insurers can change plans based on employee feedback, but they are also likely to be influenced by profit, less by a claim denial." Since I was an insurance administrator, I can tell you that how the insurer treated our group was an important factor in the decision. When insurance companies had similar rates and there was employee dissatisfaction, changing providers was a serious option. In practice, there is some inertia because changing groups was a hassle for the company and the insured members. People change jobs for a variety of reasons. Poor claims policy has been a factor for some of those. I certainly did not like having to help coworkers resubmit claims when the provider routinely lost them. That reduced the inertia. "In the future decisions regarding distribution of health care dollars will be made less by for profit corporate executives and more by public officials." We work every day to prevent that from happening. Those who fought to free this nation from government tyranny would fight that. Even as those who wish to socialize the nation work, we work to dismantle the structures that conflict with free markets. "The risk will be that public officials will not have the ability or power to follow policy directed by science and will instead make decisions based on either; political expediency, ideology, or ahem, by government accountants." Having been victimized by government bureaucrats with emotional issues and by others with agendas different than their job function, I believe that the risk of abuse by government officials is too great to permit us to move in that direction. "In the end, it’s basically a wash imo. A national health care system will likely not improve health for the majority of Americans." No, but it will ensure that political connections replace financial resources as the primary determinate of level of health care. Of course those who can afford to pay for health care twice will continue to get a high level of service in Switzerland and some Caribbean nation that will suddenly be the beneficiary of medical vacationers and fleeing doctors. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. Even though we may disagree, I enjoy the opportunity to engage in discourse with people who take the time to think and to justify their opinions.