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: i-node who wrote (6509)	3/25/2009 4:21:59 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It is a natural progression, as insurance became more widely adopted, that it would be sold as a total solution. After all, there is a profit to be had. I would not be surprised if insurance companies began offering total solutions but I don't see how they could have become commonplace because few could afford them. HMOs might have developed but it's not the HMOs that push up health care costs but rather the fee for service. If people bought the total packages it would be because they were a bargain compared to pay-as-you-go. It took corporate deep pockets. Without them people's expectations of total coverage on someone else's dime would not have evolved. They may have developed a dream of having it but they would have understood that it was something they had to pay for. Some would pay, for sure. But some paying for valet service, for example, doesn't result in a populace that expects to have their cars parked for them. People have never developed expectations that auto insurance would pay for their oil changes and tires, after all. people use it for everything They may use it for everything but the pricing hasn't escalated. Everyone only dies once. There's no moral hazard there. I think the problem is really with the fact that the claims are assigned to a third party, never to be seen by the person receiving the service. Yes, that's a big problem. But the only way the person receiving the bill has a stake in looking at is if he has a stake in paying the bill. If individuals bought insurance with incentives to reduce claims, then they'd look at the bills. The patient is being told that whatever he does, DO NOT LEAVE with an itemized statement of the services he was provided. I don't get that. What is the point? Did you ask?

To: i-node who wrote (6509)	3/25/2009 9:17:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Nobody in my family -- my dad or any of my siblings, has ever been other than self-employed (well, I worked for someone else for a couple years). Yet, we all have more health coverage than we need. I have "high deductible" insurance, as does my wife, but it certainly is far more coverage than we would have had 40 years ago. Note 1 - You have high deductible insurance, not an attempt to have a comprehensive pre-paid medical plan. 2 - You all bought these insurance policies in the context of a society that has moved to employer provided "insurance" plans that often are more of a prepaid health plan. The main lump of demand shapes the market more than you do, and you operate in the market that is so shaped. Which doesn't mean I don't think you have a point at all. I do think your right that its likely that medical coverage would have expanded even without this level of employer involvement, but the employer involvement (and the tax breaks which helped cause the employer involvement to exist and than to become more "generous") is a major force behind the change even if it isn't the only one.