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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (88983)	7/1/2012 12:01:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

"You know, young people today who go to medical school -- I don't know what to tell them. You couldn't pay me to go to medical school today. Some doctors are going to graduate with $500,000 in debt, and how are they going to make a living? This is the key to the problem, IMO... We need to bring down medical costs, but these doctors come out with so much debt that they can't afford to work for less money.. That, combined with all of the insurance costs they require, and then costs to start up their practice.. and THEN.. the heavy tax burden.. means they are going to charge whatever they can get away with. It strikes me that we need to set up incentives for people to go to medical school.. tuition assistance, loan repayment.. etc, in exchange for a set period of time where they work in public clinics.. We need a hybrid medical system where the poor can obtain basic access and diagnosis, but also centers of medical excellence. But more than anything, we need more doctors so that competition brings down the prices. (my opinion) That said, I don't care for doctors who charge excessive fees, but their doesn't seem to be any leverage.. One would logically think that insurance companies would like to contain costs to increase their profit.. but most are generally limited to what percentage profit they can make on a medical bill, or are worried that legislation will be passed to limit that percentage of profit. On average health insurers make between 3-4% over costs. So they have EVERY interest in NOT trying to contain medical costs.. Because the larger that bill, the greater amount that 3-4% represents. And they can justify raising their premiums, asserting that they're just trying to make a measly 3-4% profit.. Who can fault them for that? I saw the same thing in Iraq when KBR was hired to deliver sandbags.. They were limited to a 10% profit, so they way they made up for that is by letting their sub-contractors charge $1 per filled sandbag.. The workers were paid $10/day and they filled a crap load of sandbags each day. So KBR had every incentive to charge large fees.. KBR just wanted to make 10% on a large total contract number. I believe the same situation exists in the health insurance system. And opening up even more gov't money to them is not going to reduce costs.. And ultimately, that's what's required.. reducing costs. 18% of our total GDP is just WAY too much to be spending on medical care.. My opinion.. feel free to open fire.. Hawk