tion a focus in his economic agenda
>It is in the best interest for employers who provide health benefits to
>shop for the best plan at the lowest cost so it already is a consumer
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>insurance costs.
>This is a purely ideological scheme.
But the consumer isn't THE consumer which is most of the problem. For years
the employers have been doing exactly what you suggest, looking for the lowest
prices. This results in PPOs, HMOs and other things. Thus what is best for the
employer isn't often best for the actual consumer of MEDICAL (as opposed to
insurance) services.
Transferring this process to the individual would allow the individual to
decide what they want and what they want to pay for.
Also, currently less than 20% of all expenditures for health care
(including the premium itself) comes out of your and mine pockets. When
something is subsidized to such a great extent, it is inevitable that demand
and prices rise. Putting this back into the hands of the individual might
actually make a difference,
>Again, as with just about everything else this president has pushed,
>he's being dishonest about the rationale.
Again, as with everything else this president ha
s pushed, the opposition flunks the Econ 101 aspects of the situation.
lenny fackler - 17 Jan 2006 14:47 GMT
> tion a focus in his economic agenda
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the employers have been doing exactly what you suggest, looking for the lowest
> prices. This results in PPOs, HMOs and other things.
And what do you think individuals would do when the full premium is
coming out of their pocket?
Thus what is best for the
> employer isn't often best for the actual consumer of MEDICAL (as opposed to
> insurance) services. Transferring this process to the individual would allow the individual to
> decide what they want and what they want to pay for.
Some employers do a better job than others at looking out for their
employees.
If your employers insurance is not satisfactory and they don't respond
to the needs of their workers individuals have a choice of finding a
different employer or opting out and getting insured on their own.
Sounds like free market in action to me.
> Also, currently less than 20% of all expenditures for health care
> (including the premium itself) comes out of your and mine pockets. When
> something is subsidized to such a great extent, it is inevitable that demand
> and prices rise. Putting this back into the hands of the individual might
> actually make a difference,
It comes out of our pocket one way or another. If my employer didn't
subsidize my premiums they could pay me more. Fine. The question is
would it cost more or less if our employers shop for group policies or
if we shop individually. I don't understand how discouraging group
policies would drive prices down.
> >Again, as with just about everything else this president has pushed,
> >he's being dishonest about the rationale.
> Again, as with everything else this president ha
> s pushed, the opposition flunks the Econ 101 aspects of the situation.
Give me an example of individual pps type insurance resulting in lower
cost and higher quality. The countries with the best overall health
care indicators have nationalized or hybrid socialized systems and
their costs per individual are much lower.
Idealized notions of a free market health care systems are not Econ
101, more like neocon 101.