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: TimF who wrote (13707)	3/2/2010 6:54:58 AM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| 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 agree...it's peripheral pressure that does nothing to reduce medical practices and fees. Republicans are selling this front and center, and folks are falling for the ruse, but I don't expect much from it, assuming it's implemented in the current bill... 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) "Obamacare", as you call it, contained from the start provisions that would review and regulate best_practices...as you may recall, this provision turned into the "pull the plug on grandma" campaign the right exploited to rally opposition to the bill. But if you think that is true why do you want the government to take over health care insurance? Question back to you: What is the value add of private insurance in health care? PS: No proposal at any time suggested a "take over" of health insurance. This is another shameful opposition talking point. Today's compromise, still being referred by the right as a "take over" is little more than mandated business to the private insurance pool. Al

To: TimF who wrote (13707)	3/2/2010 9:47:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

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. The biggest cost problem with the medical providers is moral hazard. The only way to deal effectively with moral hazard is to get away from fee-for-service and low co-pay policies. The government proposals go in the other direction. They want to do away with or reduce co-pays and the do nothing to reduce fee-for-service. The only thing in the proposals to counter this problem is the plan to evaluate services for effectiveness and to ration ineffective ones, criticized as death panels. I don't see any opportunity that is palatable to the reformers. I'll be interested in seeing what Alighieri comes up with.