“Most group insurance, however, is issued without medical examination or other evidence of individual insurability because the insurer knows that it can cover enough individuals to balance those in poor health against those in good health. The risk of an insurer failing to achieve this balance is diminished as the size of the group increases, or as the insurer underwrites additional group policies and increases the total number of individuals covered. This is known as the “law of large numbers.”

The incentive is in selling affordable, profitable policies. As with cars, and every other free market good, you get what you pay for. The car market ranges from $200 to $150,000 and up. The major difference is that the decision to purchase a $200 auto doesn’t effect the price of a $20,000 auto. Secondly, the exclusive price of exotic cars has much less of an impact than being excluded from equally expensive medical procedures. All of the extra costs of maintenance with the $200 car fall upon the owner almost exclusively. The decision to buy a cheap, later to be discovered inadequate, healthcare policy directly effects EVERYONE paying for insurance and or healthcare waiting for you to pay your high deductibles and co-pays. Essentially, your unsecured, non-interest bearing loan from your provider is being paid for by all other policy holders. Not to mention the uninsured effect on costs.

As for healthcare providers, they may not be served well by a cash and carry pure market system that determines real, undistorted prices. As long as big insurance and government continues to pay medical fees, I don’t see much free market incentive for providers to reduce cost either.

When new products and technologies emerge, no one knows the value until it is on the market. Is a heart stent REALLY that expensive? Use it to open an artery, priceless. Use it to shape a vaccuum hose in an automobile, it may be marketed for much less, assuming that it could be used in that application. Point being, we consumers don’t know and there is absolutely no motivation or obligation to inform us.

Is anyone other than a physician qualified to determine the value of an MRI? (value of diagnostic data, not cost of machine) They may be just as much the “victim” of pricing as we are in the true cost of healthcare. We are most definitely a captive consumer when being rushed to the nearest hospital. Considering the assymetric knowledge in the healthcare industry, insurers and providers have a distinct advantage in determining medical prices.

Is it possible the opposition is simply a matter of not wanting to lose profits, packaged as a fight for “freedom”? I would fight hard for my 12K salary, and I imagine everyone else would as well.

That has worked wonderfully so far. The same scenario presented in the article happens with or without Obamacare. Does the “market” really work the same for healthcare as for cars?

AT&T says it is booking $1Billion in costs; Caterpillar $150 Million, AK Steel $31 Million! Dems said it would LOWER health care costs for employers. So what’s going on?

Well, if you’ve taken college level accounting and know a thing a two about these booking costs you would know what the news isn’t telling you.

The “costs” that these companies are “booking” are tax-free government subsidy payments that the companies receive to help these companies pay the cost of health care for their employees.

The health care reform has taken away these tax-free government subsidy payments to these companies.

It’s NOT that the companies are having to PAY OUT in cash the $1Billion or $150 Million or $31 Million, it’s that these companies are no longer getting government checks, they cannot “book” these checks as tax-free income anymore.

The checks issued to these companies from the government are really your tax dollars.

Today we have too few physicians to supply quality care to the current insured.
Entitlement programs at current increasing rates do not provide profits to these small businessmen [physicians].
Increased quality will require increased time spent with patients and increased tests which drive up costs, which are out of control now.
Increased time spent with patients decreases the number of patients a physician treats.
The approach would make treating entitlement program recipients more profitable than is the case now but will take more time, thus physicians could “control” their time and income by reducing their patient loads which will greatly decrease the numbers of patients they would treat.
As this occurs, the government would determine which patients they would be allowed to see.

As small businessmen the smartest thing to do that would end the problem is for the physicians to just say no to new entitlement patients.

Besides the fact that physician fees are only 20 percent of health care payments, exactly how is it possible to calculate a value for services? I know of no way to do that as it relates to individual physicians.