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: neolib who wrote (90939)	9/30/2007 5:15:52 PM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

This debate merely obfuscates the point. If one needs treatment, why is there even a consideration as to whether or not such services will impact profitability? In the US, God exists in the form of an insurance clerk? Health insurance in the US is nothing but a tax on our national health delivery system.

To: neolib who wrote (90939)	9/30/2007 5:33:50 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Uh? Why would anybody with a functional brain carrier insurance other than purchasing it at the door of the hospital if there where not a pre-existing clause of some sort, which somehow relates to your non-insured state and the pre-existing state of the condition in a way that cancels out the benefit of not having paid insurance until now? Beats me! All I am saying is you are arguing a straw man. Yes if there is NO preexisting exclusions for anything at all that won't work. On that we agree. But the flip side of this is labelling literally EVERY symptom a preexisting condition for everything, and excluding that. that won't work either. Anyway we seem to agree that forcing mandatory health coverage will fix this. On your other points: The consumer pays a monthly insurance bill with little control over the premium, but when he/she consumes services, has little motivation to restrict consumption. Reasonably high copays with a cap fix this. 2) The Doc has motivation to over prescribe since he makes more $ that way and is the only party really competent to determine what services are needed. OK- not sure about this. 3) The insurance co has motivation to under cover, since they make more $ that way. 4) Neither the consumer nor the Doc has final say if the insurance co. decides not to cover. For this, a set of guidelines provided by the feds about various coverages that should be provided needs to be produced and readily available to consumers and the medical industry, similar to the Oregon plan. In the Oregon plan they say they will pay for many generic drugs but not the brand name equivalent and avoid some major surgeries to keep patients alive for their last 2 weeks of life, etc. If a private plan refuses to adhere to these guidelines there might be grounds for legal action but if the plan is within bounds then no legal action?