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 (8180)	8/13/2009 7:09:15 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

But they don't seem to have a vested interest in lowering health care costs. They don't have a vested interest in raising them, either, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. You don't seem to appreciate the importance of roles in workable systems. (Former management consultant speaking here. <g>) In our society at large and in smaller communities like offices, schools, or families there are various parties with various roles. You don't expect children to put food on the table, the police to keep families together, businessmen to stop litter, or doctors to make sure you eat right. The job of the insurance company is to make a profit while providing health care insurance. They sell policies to customers and make payments according to the terms of those policies. That's it. If there is a social or economic problem in a country due to excessive health care costs, it is not the role of insurance companies to come up with a fix. Cooperate, yes, but not take the lead. They are not qualified to take that on. They don't have the temperament, expertise, or mandate to do so. In a free market, the one that usually puts pressure on the seller to lower costs and become more efficient is the person paying the bill. Exactly. And our government in its infinite wisdom has regulated in such a way as to destroy that role. The government needs to correct its error. It's not the job of the insurance company to take up the slack for a government failure. We need to lower the cost of treatments and end the medical inflationary cycle. You don't agree? I agree that we need to rationalize costs, if that's what you're suggesting. If what you are suggesting is to artificially reduce treatment costs through a freeze or other form of price fixing, then I think that would just make things worse. Then why isn't that driving cost... as it would in other markets? It is driving cost to some extent. It's just that other factors are working in the opposite direction and the other factors are stronger. Were it not for competition, costs would be even higher. Which proposal? The pending house proposal. But you would have to outlaw (or at least grievously tax) employer paid health benefits. That's not going to happen... you think the town meetings are tough now, try taking away every body's insurance. Understood. Which is why reform should focus first on other factors including tort reform, state deregulation and the encouragement of a more robust and varied insurance product line, and welfare for those who need financial help/high-risk insurance. There are ways of changing the incentives for employer-provided insurance over time after costs start to ease. People won't squawk if there are alternatives and the rug isn't being pulled out from under them. If they can get insurance elsewhere without it costing an arm and a leg and if the employer offers in salary what it is expending for insurance, people then have legitimate options. Well then you will never be happy, because the health bill that finally gets passed will not reflect exactly what you want, nor what I want. I'm so cynical that I've become easy. I am happy whenever I see any working brain at all amongst the cacophony in the political process. Do I expect any legislation to be apt and productive? No. The most I hope for is that they don't screw things up even more. Right now the best chance for that IMO is for the current initiative to fizzle. What is being proposed will 1) not lower costs and 2) further kludge up the system.