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: Lane3 who wrote (3254)	12/15/2007 6:37:06 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<I didn't miss that point. It's just that the bulk of the discussion in the piece was about non-profits being cheaper than profits, which is a truism, not an argument. Of course a product offered without profit will cost less. >>> I think you miss the point. These for profit organizaions (private insurers) have interjected themselves into the picture without providing any added value. They have no reason for being, they add no value. <<<The Medicare system has administrative costs of less than 3 percent, with all the remainder of expenditures going to physicians, hospitals and other providers. The private insurers, on the other hand, have corporate and administrative costs of 15 to 30 percent, and in addition outsource many other services they use to control costs by restricting the use of expensive resources. As a result, it can be estimated that only 50 to 60 percent of the premium dollar ends up with the providers, who themselves must pay additional administrative costs to deal with the regulations of the multiple insurers they must bill. >>>