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: TimF who wrote (2377)	10/26/2007 8:00:50 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

re: ...how else would costs be reduced? Price controls? Well then you either force everyone down to the level that the prices you allow will get, or you let them get health care and health insurance outside these limits from other sources and you don't have single payer. Sigh. Profit. It's $Billions in the health insurance industry. Compensation. We don't have to pay all those over-priced CEO's and middle management in the health insurance industry. Corruption cost (see: bizjournals.com. Sales representatives commissions and salaries (15% of costs?). *And the "significant" savings, especially at the provider end (both hospitals and doctors offices), from one single payment system. There is one "payer" with one set of rules rather than 100's. Cuts overhead dramatically for the provider. Listen carefully, all these reasons are valid. The evidence is in, the European systems are 1/2 the price and as effective, in some cases more effective. And they insure almost everyone. Maybe we only cut costs by 30%... that would be enough to insure everyone in the country for the same total cost. Why not give it a try since universal works better in 100% of the other similar countries? Unless it is an ideological, not pragmatic objection. Then I guess we have nothing else to discuss... a dead end.

To: TimF who wrote (2377)	10/26/2007 11:12:23 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>>Other than the supposed major gains in efficacy from only having one source of insurance, how else would costs be reduced?<< Thing is, none of the candidates (outside of maybe Kucinich) has proposed a single payor plan. Therefore the argument that "choice will be reduced to a single plan" is specious. What's been proposed are various flavors of universal coverage (more or less like Romney's in Massachusettes) where the choices will still be plentiful, coupled with guaranteed issue and subsidies for lower income citizens. HSA's are still in the mix (and probably would thrive due to lower premiums and higher deductables attractive to a young, healthy cohort. "Single payor" and "universal" are vastly different concepts....... Even with a "universal coverage" system, you can bring in costs by standardizing levels of coverage, benefits and claims payment. If everything is submitted and paid on one platform, there's a huge savings (even if the claims are ultimately paid hundreds of different fiduciaries). Rules allowing payors to combine purchasing power can reduce their costs. Rules limiting liability for all participants can greatly reduce costs. Allowing insured groups to form (outside of the current ERISA driven employer groups) across state boundaries and exempt from 50 different state regulations greatly reduces costs. Insurance companies in that environment will have to compete on service, speed and accuracy of claims processing and by purchasing right. Not by arbitrarily denying services or coverage. What a concept.