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: John Koligman who wrote (6100)	2/13/2009 4:32:49 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated The study I cited is brand new. It got some press just recently. As for the level of costs that would trigger bankruptcy, that is easily mitigated with simple and relatively inexpensive catastrophic insurance. Many states require comprehensive policies. If they would allow catastrophic-only policies to be sold, the kind of debt that would wipe someone out, your concern, would not occur. You don't necessarily need a mega government system to mitigate that problem. In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. I have addressed that number in detail here many times. I won't do it again other than to point out that the most obvious distortion which is that you can hardly feel sorry for those who are eligible for Medicaid and haven't bothered or don't want to enroll. "It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage" "And another one for Dierks, who says costs will soar when the government gets involved" A 2003 study published by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association also found that health insurer administrative costs were approximately 11% to 12% of premiums, I think he is dead wrong about the malicious intent of federal employees. And I agree with you that administrative costs would be less with the feds administering it than insurance companies. That's one of the conspicuous savings. But admin costs are only a small part of "costs will soar when the government gets involved." The biggest risk to cost control under a government program IMO is political. If the voters are outraged that little Johnny got a splinter and the government failed to send an ambulance, as the voters are inclined to do, then every splinter will require an ambulance.