On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Crystall<dawnfal...@upliftwar.com> wrote: > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew >> Crystall<dawnfal...@upliftwar.com> wrote: >> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: >> > >> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it >> >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those >> >> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the >> >> insurance market to function rationally. >> > >> > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler". >> >> Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces >> costs, and does not decrease preventative care. > > Except you're not proposing "consumer driven health care", you > propising that the government pick up an lot of expensive healthcare > costs. More, it doesn't create incentives to increase prevenative > care either.
Actually, a health insurance market without government interference would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a government-redistribution of wealth program, people are better served if the government does not prevent them from making agreements with each other, but rather simply subsidizes those who need it (or manage to persuade politicians that they need it). > >> | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate >> | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent >> | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will >> | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and >> | employees. > > 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other countries > systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. 3 to 5% PER YEAR. It adds up. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
