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: JohnM who wrote (133690)	3/19/2010 10:43:49 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542829

How do health insurance companies make money? By denying payment to folk they insure. And America does not have a social consensus that believes that is wrong, that's the incredible part. But I'll keep beating my drum that a huge number of those opposed to that POV are locked into no-drop government-guaranteed healthcare programs already. It stinks.

To: JohnM who wrote (133690)	3/19/2010 10:56:41 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

<<<It's the structural incentives that matter. How do health insurance companies make money? By denying payment to folk they insure>>> It all makes sense. The primary mission of health insurance companies is to make money for themselves and for their shareholders. The only way they can make money is to take in as much money as possible and to payout as little as possible. That is what they bring to the table. They have to spread risk and create products that will contribute to their fiduciary responsibilities. Unless they can do something to lower health care costs, they can only increase overall costs. The big mystery is why so many people can't see that.

To: JohnM who wrote (133690)	3/19/2010 11:40:06 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542829

John; It's the structural incentives that matter. How do health insurance companies make money? By denying payment to folk they insure. Leaving the Krugman piece aside - for now - this statement of yours is exactly why I favor turning the entire health care over to the government - well the control of payments. The example given is criminal and these guys should be thrown in jail in my opinion, but doing that misses the real issue here. The issue is that if you have insurance companies in charge of distribution of care then we better understand their incentive is mandated to increase profits. That is their raison d'etre. This is just not a solution in the long run IMO. If you want our care cost managed by insurance companies, the only solution is some how making the penalties for misconduct harsh enough that no company will try the kind of evil in the Krugman piece. In my state for instance, we passed a referendum penalizing insurance companies three time the original bill if they fail to pay (auto insurance). What company would take the chance knowing that besides a legal battle they might end up owing three times the original payment? Same could be done for the Krugman issue. But instead of that we have the nonsense of telling insurance companies they can't deny coverage - as if the incentives will have somehow changed with the health care bill. Do that and I promise rates are going up and up and up. They're going to explain this by saying we had to take on all these people with preexisting EXPENSIVE cost. If rates go up - has that fixed our health care issue?