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: Alighieri who wrote (13637)	2/28/2010 10:53:27 AM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Healthcare is very labor intensive - most of the costs are people's salaries. I'd like to see a comparison of the numbers of people per capita) making a living in healthcare in different nations, along with a comparison of their salaries . This will probably account for the bulk of the cost differences. If you walk into any hospital in the US, you'll encounter crowds of people who are busy working - but make no contribution to patient care whatsoever. Most of them a laboring trying to comply with demands from HCFA, H2S, county, state health depts, etc. Oh, don't forget the famous Joint Commission, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Add to that the culture of defensive medicine with all the questionable testing and hospital admissions (at a cost of several K's each). What we need is massive DEregulation - AND simplification. We need to get the government and the lawyers out of the examining room - because their presence is very expensive. Unless this is done, all those health reform bills are BS - and little more than politicians playing their favorite games.

To: Alighieri who wrote (13637)	2/28/2010 11:55:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

but it does nothing to reduce the actual cost of medicine Sure it does. If you have competition for products, then competitors develop products that are price competitive to attract business. If you lower premiums, then the cost of medicine, broadly framed, is reduced. Catastrophic, exclusionary benefit, and higher co-pay policies all have lower premiums. If some of those products lower the cost of delivery, then you've reduced the cost of medicine even more. HMO-type options reduce the course of delivery. If some of those products cause unnecessary usage to be reduced or greater cost consciousness in usage decisions, then you've reduced the cost of medicine more still. Catastrophic, narrow benefit, and higher co-pay policies all do that.

To: Alighieri who wrote (13637)	3/1/2010 8:17:39 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Increased competition in insurance (to the extent lack of competition actually is a serious problem) would indirectly put downward pressure on medical costs, as insurance companies work slightly harder to reduce their payouts, and would also put greater pressure on medical insurance overhead/costs and thus prices. I think your right that it will only have a marginal effect on overall medical spending. But if you think that is true why do you want the government to take over health care insurance? Even if its true that the government is good at wringing out these types of costs (and I don't think it is, at least without losing quality and responsiveness), they only represent a fraction of the total care and insurance bundle. Both Obamacare, and "Allow interstate sales of insurance" act on the insurance companies, not the medical care providers. If you think the key is medical care providers, what would you do about them? (Other than hoping for pressure on the insurance companies to be passed along to providers)