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 (16056)	4/3/2010 10:56:43 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Estimated to save 1% of current costs with potentially high risk consequences Tort reform or anti-trust? Yep...in the current bill. (Insurance policies would be major medical and catastrophic) You're mistaken about that. The policies described as gold, silver, etc are all full coverage policies. The legislation is geared toward getting first dollar coverage or close to that. There are even some preventative measures that disallow any co-payment. My notion and the legislation are utterly different in this regard. Without mandating low costs ala Medicare, you are dreaming. Not dreaming. It's the beauty of competition. Look at how reasonable costs are for laser eye surgery. It's because insurance doesn't cover it so they have to compete on price. The clinics showing up in places like Walmart are all low cost. The labs that have started to provide services directly to the public also have reasonable prices. Competitors can and do bring prices down on their own. If we let them flourish, prices would come down in a more natural and efficient way than command and control pricing. I don't get the advantage of this one (individual policies). It's in part to rationalize the pricing so that a couple without kids don't have to pay the same as a couple with six kids. To reduce free riding and put more skin in the game. It also enables kids to establish guaranteed renewal in their own right. It doesn't have a lot of stand-alone value re costs but makes some of the other pieces work better. good luck getting seniors to bite on this and insurance companies to take on the most expensive clients in the entire demographic spectrum. Hard to tell how many would participate, both patients and insurance companies. When faced with an HMO-only Medicare, though, I suspect a lot would at least consider alternatives. As for insurance companies, there is no lack of them in the Medicare supplement market. I don't see why this would be different. Either way, though, it helps the budget. Those who can't/don't get insurance join high risk state exchanges until Medicare ready...what's different in your proposal? Does everything have to be different? Much of what you want to do is already in the bill They share a few line items. The contradictions are myriad. My paradigm is entirely different and mostly counter.