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 (3494)	12/26/2007 1:52:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

A private monopoly might possibly be worse in this area than a government monopoly, but there is no need to have any monopoly. Instead people can pick insurance, and companies that do a poor job for patients (relative to other companies) put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

To: Road Walker who wrote (3494)	12/26/2007 3:28:52 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"You would rather trust the decision to an organization whose fiduciary duty to it's stockholders is to maximize profit by denying your treatment?" Your comment insults the readers' intelligence. I would rather trust people acting in their own individual self interest that to permanently vest the power in a self serving bureaucracy that would tend to become inbred over time. In market economies when people have the power to choose they make self interested decisions. Yes, the company pukes will deny claims to maximize profits. However when one insurer denies too many claims they will lose customers and profits will decline. Another insurer who pays claims at a level that individuals are more comfortable with will see their book of business increase and their profits will increase as a result. This is the Invisible Hand at work.