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: Katelew who wrote (3981)	1/17/2008 9:38:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think you're still confused because you're trying to picture a role for health insurers in a single-payer system. Not confused. I understand that you propose the demise if health insurance companies. The government replaces them and takes over their function Exactly. And that is what "nationalizing" an industry is. If you want to get rid of health insurance companies and have the Federal government take over their functions on one hand and then deny that you want to nationalize the health insurance industry on the other, that's bogus. If the government abolishes Detroit and starts manufacturing and selling cars, they've nationalized the auto industry. If they abolish health insurance companies and start creating plans, setting standards, determining how much to pay for what, making payments, etc, they've nationalized the health insurance industry. So it's not a matter of creating non-profit health insurance companies. In the extreme, there are no private health insurance companies at all. This comment was independent of our discussion on nationalizing the health insurance industry. I didn't mean that I thought you were advocating non-profit health insurance companies. I was saying that, if you want to eliminate the cost of advertising and profits, which you said you wanted to do, you don't have to go so far as to nationalize the industry, you could just make it non-profit. It's the most direct way and least disruptive way to accomplish your stated objectives. I'm not suggesting doing that, either. I'm just trying to get you to evaluate your objectives and from them work up a solution to fit, not finding ways to rationalize your desired solution.

To: Katelew who wrote (3981)	1/19/2008 4:42:10 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The government becomes the insurer, i.e. the single payer. The government replaces them and takes over their function. Their function is simply to collect our premiums and pay out claims. The government would do this instead. Not exactly the way the single payer system works in Canada. Some funding is provided to each province or territory by the federal gov't using a formula based on population size and the relative wealth of individual provinces. However health care is a provincial responsibility so each province administers its own system. Some provinces charge health care premiums to employers and/or individuals but these premiums are not related to use or risk of use of the system but are really taxes. The system covers only "medically necessary" care provided by physicians or in hospitals. This coverage is universal regardless of income level. It is illegal to buy or provide insurance for medically necessary care. The Canada Health Act does not generally cover cosmetic surgery, dental work (unless required to be done in hospital) vision care not provided by a physician, physical therapy or pharmaceuticals outside of a hospital. About 70% of Canada's health cost's are covered by public funds. The other 30% can be covered by private insurers.