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 (14501)	3/13/2010 9:43:39 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

We can have plans that stratify on the basis of services or some that do so on how much they reimburse. It's not either or. Your notion of strata is one dimensional. We could have a mix of various strata. The out of pocket expenses are more important to some. The benefit mix is more important to some. If you do it only on out-of-pocket expenses, you lose a lot of opportunity to cut costs because fixed benefit packages have a tendency to grow until they are loaded. And once a benefit is in the package If you look at the argument for selling insurance across state lines, that was intended to get away from loaded benefit packages where states had responded to lobbies for fertility treatments or acupuncture or whatever, thus driving up costs. If you could pick a leaner package, you could save money personally and save the system money overall. Sure, smaller reimbursements save money but leaner benefit packages save money, too. That's the beauty in competition and choice.