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: Road Walker who wrote (2565)	10/30/2007 9:31:28 PM
From: Robohogs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Have you ever watched the congressional process? Look at NY State and see what is required in a plan to be offered in NY state. Going from memory but such things as chiropractors, Chinese medicine, drug/alcohol dependency, mental health, etc. are REQUIRED to be in a plan. Compare the cost in NY to many other states and you will see it is over 2x vs. some. I actually have no problem with a national healthcare plan with the following elements: Minimal requirements for plan Coverage is true insurance and only kicks in over $1,000 out of pocket Probably does not cover drugs until a separate limit is hit Alternatively, plan has stiff copays for treatments and drugs to show consumer cost Such a plan would be impossible as folks are trying to turn "insurance" into a payment plan, as service providers scramble to get their share, as drug companies scramble to get their share and as congressional folks pocket tons of money for campaigns. All paid for by taxes on the highest 5% - who you say can then go off and pay for fancier care. And don't forget , much of this is on top of a hike in top income tax rate, a hike in SS tax and the fact that the top brackets are still paying the Medicare tax (along with employers) on all income. I hope they at least have the balls to pass any new legislation straight up instead of resorting to sneak hikes in the night (Grassley raising my taxes as overseas expat a few years back RETROACTIVELY). I have no problem with modestly higher taxes and given my work/family decisions, the hit to me would be modest, but come on. Be real. Jon

To: Road Walker who wrote (2565)	11/1/2007 12:58:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Changing the subject from the payment system. The payment system wasn't the only thing being discussed and isn't the only important concern. "Just less benefit" is really next to no benefit.. Not necessarily. re: And the issue isn't just with highly specialized "ups and extras", but rather with coverage a lot of people are going to want, unless the basic coverage is surprisingly lavish. And if it is so lavish, there goes your plan for lowering costs. You love that "lavish" word. What, the un and under insured are going to complain? Unless you get outstanding coverage as part of the basic package, there will be a lot of people who want more. If you do get such good coverage as part of the basic package than it will be very expensive. Many uninsured are either temporarily or voluntarily uninsured. Drop those out and you still have a lot of people, maybe 20 million? I don't know the exact number, but its far from a majority. Those 20 million might enjoy any insurance benefit (esp. if they don't consider the negative indirect problems on the heath care industry); but many people have decent insurance, and aren't going to want to go down to some lowest common denominator insurance. So your dealing with millions of people who would want premium coverage. All these people getting extra private insurance means your not getting single payer, but dozens or hundreds of payers. The point is not that paying extra for extra coverage is "so bad", its that it negates the whole single payer idea that you claim is such a huge advantage in terms of containing costs. Providers still have to deal with multiple payers.