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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46323)	10/7/2010 7:02:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Plenty of reason to assume that, you'll be treating more people to a greater extent, the default assumption would be that it would cost more. You generally have to pay more to get more. That assumption could be shown to be false, in this case, because this could be some special exception to the general trend, but it probably isn't. Third party payment is one of the major drivers of increasing health care costs. Its true that the uninsured had some degree of services with third party payment, but its very unlikely that they won't get any more treatment, or will suddenly become more carefully about containing the cost of treatment, once they are insured. In simple terms there really isn't any reason to think that insuring more people will reduce total cost. It doesn't even necessarily reduce cost per insured person, since their are already enough insured people to have economies of scale, since the initial adding of capacity to cover more people will increase costs, and since the law to push more insurance coverage also includes extensive coverage requirements, and such requirements push up cost.