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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (129253)	1/26/2010 2:52:03 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

>>Actually, I have suggested that option although not here. The object is not to sell insurance across state lines. That's just a means to an end. The object is to allow people to buy insurance without being encumbered by their own state's regulations, specifically in the Cadillac regulation states. There are some states like New York that require insurance sold there to include a panoply of benefits, everything under the sun. The result is that insurance there is dramatically more expensive than insurance sold in states without those requirements. If folks could buy insurance that had only what they wanted, it would be more affordable. And young invincibles could buy catastropic insurance, which is quite cheap.<< I am all for the young, or anyone who thinks there's a benefit to it, having the choice to buy only catastrophic coverage and paying smaller premiums. If you start allowing people in, say, California to buy insurance from any other state, though, I think the healthcare providers will end up having to hire even more people to keep up with billing, and to make sure that they are meeting all the various state's requirements. "I'd like to see the doctor. I'm a new patient, and I need a colonoscopy." "What type of insurance do you have?" "Blue Cross." "Blue Cross California, or Blue Cross from some other state?" "Blue Cross Kentucky. Or as I like to call it, Blue Grass Blue Shield. Ha ha." "Hmmm, well I don't think BC Kentucky covers colonoscopies. But maybe I'm thinking of Blue Cross Tennessee. Hold on a moment." Perfect. That should reduce healthcare costs for everybody. Not.

To: Lane3 who wrote (129253)	1/26/2010 3:28:11 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

It springs from an entirely different philosophy, reducing costs through the marketplace. It is assumed that national insurance policies would produce an active market with lots of competitors. If the object is to get costs down, I think it has merit as part of the solution I'm not opposed to the concept of insurance policies that transcend state lines, but I think your assumption of lower costs isn't totally warranted. Two reasons. One is that insurers prefer to sell big, bloated, frilly policies that cover stuff most people will never have need for. The profit margins are bigger. The other thing is that premiums must factor in the actual costs of the healthcare in a particular state. So the same Blue Cross coverage, i.e. same benefits, will always cost more in New York than in Arkansas because New York docs and hospitals charge more. This was one of the reasons Southern Blue Dogs were somewhat opposed to Obama's proposals. The assumption was that any kind of national health insurance would actually raise premiums for folks in lower cost states like mine. Having said that, I still could get behind a true single payer system of health insurance. If done right, it should lower costs for everyone. Or to get costs down for everyone, the premiums could be somewhat regionalized. Why should it lower costs? Because not only is the profit margin stripped out, so are most of the sales and marketing costs. If the government is the only insurer, as with Medicare, there's no need for a sales force, an advertising budget, not to mention overly compensated upper management. But it's a mischaracterization to speak of taking the profit out of all the levels of healthcare. Better to stay with a system that has private, profit-driven doctors and hospitals delivering the healthcare like all of Europe has (with the exception of Great Britain.)