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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (9619)	2/17/2012 6:12:19 PM
From: sm1th	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

One also has to remember that the cost of private insurance includes the need to support insurance companies bureaucracies There is one very significant part of the insurance market, which by definition would not be provided by government run insurance. A very large percentage of employers are self insured in the sense that the company bears the financial risk, and the "insurance" company just administers the plan and processes claims and payments. One health insurance company which I recently worked for had more self-insured members than fully insured (by the insurance co) members. I believe this is quite common, and know that I have been on that sort of plan for much of my life. The insurance companies actually like this, as it allows them to spread their operating costs without increasing their risk, and the employers like it because it can lower costs. This option would never exist in govt sponsered plans, all risk would be born by the taxpayers.

To: TimF who wrote (9619)	2/17/2012 6:22:45 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

One of the problems I foresee with a government run universal system, and this is a problem with Medicare, is that there is not the same urge to hold down both medical costs and overhead as in the private sector which needs to stay in the black brings to the table. I'd like to take Ron Paul's idea (I think it's his) of moving toward a high(er) deductible so the consumer has some stake in the game. I know with Medicare once I'm told its covered the incentive is to max out the service. But there are good features about the proposal (can't be turned down, portability, affordability) that we need to retain while somehow incentivizing efficient use on both the part of the government and the patient. I partially blame Republicans (in congress) for not being part of that conversation because they generally have better insights into efficiencies--or at least those with business experience do.