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: Cogito who wrote (130366)	2/6/2010 7:53:50 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

<<<I just think that if the government is going to cover the high risk group, it might as well distribute the risk by covering everyone by expanding Medicare>>> Why go through this charade with the insurance companies. It is like dealing with an industry of "jail house lawyers". It is not like we don't know what happens when governments cover everyone. Costs go down virtually cut in half. Health care goes up. Why not just pay them off. Give the insurance companies their 3% "profit" and get them out of the loop all together. All they have to do is fight each other for their share of 3% of total health care costs in this country. "Giving" the insurance industry their 3% "profit" for doing nothing would be a great roi. Give away 3% and get 47% lower health care costs.

To: Cogito who wrote (130366)	2/7/2010 7:46:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

I believe the insurance companies would have to set their rates for nationally available plans to account for the much higher medical costs in the most populous areas. Why would they charge a uniform price across the country? So they'd be more able find excuses to drop people after they become ill, and would be able to exclude more people who present higher risk. Why would we not choose to concurrently outlaw this? I just think that if the government is going to cover the high risk group, it might as well distribute the risk by covering everyone Do you favor mainstreaming as a general principle or just in health insurance? Supplemental plans are currently available to Medicare recipients, and could remain available. Would you not anticipate a backlash when average folks are limited by cost to Medicare while the rest of us use supplemental policies or our own money to get the care we expect?

To: Cogito who wrote (130366)	2/8/2010 5:01:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541957

it has lower overhead than any private insurance company. That's not just a theory, that's a fact. Medicare is an admirably efficient program. It may be a fact, but not nearly as big of one as its commonly projected. The most frequently mentioned figures for Medicare or Medicaid overhead don't really include all of the overhead. Also "overhead", doesn't equal "useless waste". For example one big part of the private sector insurance companies overhead is detection of bogus claims.