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: Lane3 who wrote (8861)	8/30/2009 4:12:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The consumer choice is between rationing plan A and rationing plan B. Only if it's an individual rather than a group policy is there no rationing. I don't see a good reason to entirely deny choice in employer provided health care. If an employer provided health policy were totally inadequate it would affect the employers ability to attract employees and/or you'd see individuals supplementing their policies with gap policies or declining employer provided health policies altogether and agitating for the costs passed on as salary. I think the effect of insisting on calling insurers rationers is to give an argument to the socializers. See, insurers ration so its really okay and it would be fairer to let the government do it is an argument being made out there. Your evidence isn't good enough to support your claim because you ignore the variables. Not unless you can recognize and adjust the variables. Variables? As long as there is choice there is consumer pressure to move towards some norm. In Britain and Canada you have minimal normative pressure. In mixed systems you do. So you're comparing apples and oranges. I've already posted evidence the reform under discussion in the US now will remove choice over a period of a few years. Lets not pretend choice will be maintained. I would not argue with "monopoly systems are likely to have more rationing." Then we don't have an argument on this subject. As you can see by the Fortune magazine analysis, its not just my assumption. I don't have a quarrel with that assumption, only with your failure to stipulate it when making over-broad charges. It is now stipulated.