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 (8636)	8/24/2009 11:08:06 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

So the Feds take responsibility for regulating insurance? No, this deregulates. The states. So that their residents aren't constrained to just state-approved christmas-tree policies. 5. Yes insurance companies could sell across state lines. Which is what you say you want.

To: Road Walker who wrote (8636)	8/24/2009 11:59:07 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

1. Give a one year lead time and make employer provided health care illegal. 2. Employers who provide health care as a benefit would be required to increase each employees salary by the cost of the current program. 3. Health insurance would be fully tax deductible for individuals. 4. There would be a competing public option, and co-op options (options are GOOD things). 5. Yes insurance companies could sell across state lines. 6. Yes there would be some tort reform. 7. There would be an insurance exchange established. 8. Individuals would be required to get some minimum type of policy (??? Devil in the details). This does nothing toward care of indigent. This does little nothing toward universal care or portability that couldn't be done without the creation of a massive new government bureaucracy. And the rest of it is pretty much what the Rs want to do. The one thing you don't get -- and never will -- is that when you create a "government option" you insure the private insurance industry will die and the health care system will suffer. Because the government option can undercut EVERYONE on premiums (since it has a bottomless pit of money) and the more it does so, the more powerful it gets, which means it can cut fees to providers. We've seen this before. United Health Care was not always a major player in the region I'm in. And suddenly, they're undercutting everyone, providing cheaper coverage to get larger businesses on board. Suddenly, within a few years, UHC has so much power it is cutting fees to providers. We saw, about 10 years ago, UHC start to pay almost even with Medicare fees to surgeons -- a level where a surgeon cannot even make a decent living. Until surgeons started bailing out of their programs, they were in control. The same thing will obviously happen with a "government option".

To: Road Walker who wrote (8636)	8/25/2009 8:53:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I wrote: "If the government wanted to reform healthcare they would simply allow any consumer to purchase healthcare from any state. Consumers would choose the coverages they could afford which they needed." You wrote: So the Feds take responsibility for regulating insurance? I reread my post multiple times. It does not suggest that the federal government should become the regulator. You wrote: This is what I would like to see (in my dreams): 1. Give a one year lead time and make employer provided health care illegal. 2. Employers who provide health care as a benefit would be required to increase each employees salary by the cost of the current program. 3. Health insurance would be fully tax deductible for individuals. 4. There would be a competing public option, and co-op options (options are GOOD things). 5. Yes insurance companies could sell across state lines. 6. Yes there would be some tort reform. 7. There would be an insurance exchange established. 8. Individuals would be required to get some minimum type of policy (??? Devil in the details). The insurance companies AND the providers would really have to scramble to cut costs because there would be SO MUCH business up in the air. 1. In #4 you suggest competition is good, but you want to make one option for competition illegal? In #3 you found one option for leveling the playing field yet you want to make the option that has been traditional since wage controls forced employers to find an alternate form of compensation in the 1940's. 2. Interesting. It would force people to do what you perceive to be right. I can see your point, but am not ready to concede it. 3. A level playing field is important. Why not make it fully taxable and end the tax preference that distorts the market for health services? If you want to see medical inflation get in line with general inflation that would be more effective than trying to fix a broken system with more mandates. 4. Who funds the shortfall when the government option is mispriced? If you want charitable organizations then why do need to destroy the current layer of charitable health providers to implement ObamaCare? Governments don't compete; they either are steamrolled due to multiple forces or use their power to bury the competition unfairly. 5. One of the few suggestions on any table that could make a difference. As long as you mean they could offer insurance plans free of Balkanized mandates. 6. Another major driver of high medical costs. Getting rid of excessively defensive medicine could save 10% right off the top. (The percentage is a guess.) 7. What is an insurance exchange? Do you mean like a stock exchange? People buy and sell plans and options for plans on a daily basis? 8. The heavy hand of federal government should impinge on our freedoms and make a list of what we have to do to be good socialist citizens? A better choice would be to let states try that if they wish and people who like it could move to those states. People who don't like it could move to states without excessive mandates. We can measure how much people desire that option by observing net migration to and from Massachusetts. It does not seem to be a big winner.