Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Ace, that makes no sense at all. It's not like BCBS has to have underwriting offices in all 50 states.
|
I agree. I think they would place offices where the offices would give them the most benefit.
Quote:
|
That would have the opposite effect of what you're thinking - it would be incredibly inefficient.
|
I am not sure what I wrote to make you come to this conclusion. But I think businesses run inefficiently eventually go out of business unless they have protection from competition.
Quote:
|
Why should they have an office in Rhode Island when they can have one in Boston, an hour away, with the authority to conduct business in Rhode Island? Why shouldn't the Denver office be able to undewrite for Wyoming, especially since it's going to be very difficult to find talented underwriters in a state with only 1M people? Why would you locate your underwriting office to Nevada if the talent pool isn't there to accomplish your goals?
|
I don't think it matters where they have underwriting offices and they should locate an office like that in the place the best suits there needs.
I think improved efficiencies can lower costs to the consumer. We often hear about overhead or administrative costs being too high and that is a justification for a public option. A public option is not going to actually help a company reduce costs. It would be nice to see Congress actually look at why admin. costs are high and help reduce those costs rather than assume big business simply wants to take advantage of people.