like they aren't already though. But for anyone interested the notion of comparitive shopping does not work for a patient that would be paying out of pocket. Nor I think, does it work for insurance plans. I was recently asked if I want Lovelace, Presbyterian or Molina. I have no clue -- I want whoever covers what I need covered. No way to determine this without slogging through multiple levels of a call center and I am not sure even that will work. And that's with more choices than I had before -- the last time I changed insurance it went like this: employer had selescted BCBS, probably because there was something about it that *they* liked. OK so, with BCBS in this town you are a Lovelace patient. Period. Everyone else is an out of network provider.
so.... loss of choice is a red herring in this debate imho. On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Robert Munn <cfmuns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Dana wrote: > > > > > I have recently been researching the costs of certain drugs and > procedures > > and I have found a flaw in the idea that we can reduce costs through > > competition > > > Apparently one of the ideas floating around is to allow people to shop for > inn't alreasurance plans across state lines, which you can't do today, on > the theory > that greater competition for insurance plans would bring down costs to the > consumer. I'm not sure how, though, at least not on the scale that we need. > > It still all comes down to numbers - a big demographic shift away from > youth > toward age, and therefore not enough dollars coming from younger, healthier > people to fund older, less healthy people. So what can we do? We can > squeeze > costs, we can squeeze the rich, we can squeeze the young, we can squeeze > the > doctors, we can squeeze the insurance companies, we can squeeze the > lawyers, > but ultimately, we have to squeeze the patients. Whether through rationing > of care in a single-payer system or the limitations of the current > insurance-based system, patients are going to get squeezed. And that's the > first and last problem of the current debate - no one on either side of the > debate wants to admit that patients are going to get squeezed, because when > we say patients, we are really saying elderly voters. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:301338 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
