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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (711709)	4/24/2013 12:52:44 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571166

>> No one is paying for mine. You said you now get preventive care when you didn't before -- I took that to mean that you aren't paying more for it. If that is not the case, then perhaps you are paying for it. But that raises the question of whether routine preventive care SHOULD be paid for. Obviously, most of it should not. It is well established that a substantial contributor to out of control health care costs is the lack of the beneficiary's role in the payment process (AKA "skin in the game"). This, of course,was caused by government intervention. But Obamacare furthers it dramatically with new initiatives such as mandated paying for birth control, which any sensible person can see is a decision that ought to be between two contracting entities. Same with preventive care. I certainly don't want mine paid for -- I'd rather just pay it as I go rather than run it through an insurance company and dump part of it on someone else. It all comes back to there being no free rides. >> but in hindsight i realize that last year she got a reimbursement because the company was not in compliance with admin cost limits set by ACA....so unless she gets another reimbursement this year her policy will have gone up some....in that sense you could argue that we've been paying for it all along and not getting it. Well, that just makes no sense at all. You were paying for it but not getting it because government had not previously put arbitrary limits on how much money insurance companies can make? I think what you're missing -- at least part of it -- is that insurance companies are a key element of our health care finance system. If you want to kill them, we can have that discussion -- but it will quite obviously result in crazy increases in costs -- far worse than what we now have, and most would affirm that is undesirable. When Obamcare put these arbitrary limits on insurance companies, what they've done (again, the result, not the intent) is to set in motion a systemic increase in health care costs over time. We are in the initial phases of it, but clearly, things are going to get far worse than they ever were. Why do you think Baucus, the author of the legislation, has said it is a "train wreck"? In fact, he's retiring because he can see the writing on the wall. He will become unelectable as his work product is shown to be a disaster.