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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (522307)	11/13/2012 11:18:07 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Golden words, Mq. The items you mentioned, plus the costs of complying with insane volumes of government regulation - is where most healthcare dollars are spent.I think there is need for "catastrophic" insurance. I'd say the deductible ought to be in the neighborhood of a persons monthly income - but the specific amounts should be up to individuals to decide. Such insurance would be, at least, real "insurance" - against devastating costs - rather than a fully prepaid service plan.Government takes a lion's share out of everything it touches. ObamaCare is not a solution - it is a symptom of a worsening problem I think that procedures that aren't covered by insurance are a great thing to bring up in these discussions. I like looking at LASIK surgery specifically. When I first started looking at LASIK, it was $3000 per eye. When I had mine done, it was $1500 per eye. Now I see ads for $500 per eye. I believe that insurance keeps the price for medical procedures artificially high. Where there is no insurance, competition drives the price down. Obviously there are still reasons to have insurance, but like you said, it should be for catastrophic medical needs.