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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (237309)	11/9/2013 2:39:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Health insurance is a rent seeking entity layered between those wanting or needing health care and the means of providing that care That is an exceedingly badly confused view of insurance, but its understandable if you think payment for all healthcare should (or does) occur through insurance. Its Obama who wants to do that. I want to pay directly for all expected healthcare costs, and get risk averaging for the statistically unlikely ones. But both you and Obama can't wrap your minds around that, so have a caricature view of insurance which leads to nutty solutions.

To: Metacomet who wrote (237309)	11/9/2013 3:02:39 PM
From: Crony	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

First, you don't compare cost in other countries with the cost in US. Because they don't have malpractice lowers suing everyone and everything (try to sue a government). 20-30% of US medical costs is attributed to defense medicine. Secondly, obesity levels are completely different in US and Europe and Japan. That is another 25% or so in extra cost. And the quality is better in US. So it is not even apples and oranges, it is apples and bananas. In a free market economy consumers force manufacturers to lower prices and/or increase quality. They are constantly looking for better option. But since you cannot bargain about the cost when you are laying of an operating table - there should be some service that would allow consumers to bargain with doctors ahead of time. That is what insurance companies would do if we had a free market based health care system. When you have a single payer - there is no pressure on medical industry to lower costs. You can say the government would put a pressure and they will, but that will only cause the quality to go down. So yes, insurance companies take a cut, but they provide a service. Same way as a grocery store on the corner charges you more for food than a supermarket but it provides you with some service. Which you might not appreciate, but that doesn't mean grocery stores should be banned and everyone should be shopping in a supermarket.

To: Metacomet who wrote (237309)	11/9/2013 3:21:57 PM
From: research1234	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

I understand the difference quite well. If healthcare is a basic right and no one stands between consumers and docs/hospitals, the cost would be a significant multiple higher than it is now. In the bad old days before employer health insurance and Medicare began distorting the marketplace, cost of treatment was the rationing device. Health insurers have become the rationing device. If they are stripped out of the equation, we would need a vast government bureaucracy to replace them. I don't think anyone would view that as a good idea.