If the idea is to create competition then open up the market. Allow interstate competetion from Health insurance companies. I used to sell Health insurance we had maybe 3 to choose from. Most of our policies were written, went to the same two companies. Our clients were like "Thats all the choices i have?" pretty much yes. Health insurance should be just as competively qouted as life insurance, there is no excuse. But the end result of that wouldn't lead to more people being insured. It wouldn't be healthy (pun intended) compettition - it would basically be the insurance companies competing against each other in order to maximize profits, seeing who can do the best at denying coverage to those who need it.Your logic doesn't make sense, "competing against each other in order to maximize profits", yeah its called capitalism. The big bad corporation is going to get you. If there was 10 companies to choose from, your logic would suggest all 10 would be corrupt. Did you really think the people who have bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Cash for Clunkers etc. is going to be able to run a national bureaucracy over seeing health care? The Democrats and socialists don't want money they want power and control. "if we can just control this part of the country, we can run it better and it would be better for everyone." blah blah blah. More people being insured, great, they won't get the care they need, but by God they'll be assured.[QUOTE="fillini"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Some evidence that backs up that claim would be nice. Again, the public option operates exactly as a private insurer would; it is open to the individual market and employers - those who cannot afford insurance on their own would receive subsidies when purchasing either a private or public insurer. Using your logic, a private option makes no sense without government subsidies.
Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.
-Sun_Tzu-
fillini's forum posts
But that problem is unfounded, the CBO said prior to the gutting of the public option that it has no competitive advantage.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
That's not the argument I'm making though. My problem with it is that if the government plan does become the only plan, they'll be able to write the rules without impunity. To use another gaming analogy, it'd be like playing an FPS with someone using a God mode cheat. And even then, the government can still rewrite the rules to give them an unfair advantage over private health insurance, just as they pretty much have in giving them a complete monopoly over two-thirds of the entire postal system.
tycoonmike
:| The CBO being part of the same government that would be at liberty to rewrite the rules of competition...
The CBO is non-partisan, or it was. Obama had them play with the numbers for the Cap and Trade bill. To use an analogy in re of that report: they ran the number that showed Cap and Trade in its most favorable light, pretty much said this house is going to cost 25,000 to build. *this figure doesn't in include lumber, labor, the roof or the land.[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Yes, some will not be able to afford insurance without subsidies, but not everyone, like you suggested. Besides, you are arguing against subsidized insurance, not a public option.-Sun_Tzu-
A public option makes no sense without government subsidies. Not even the middles class will be able to afford public insurrance without it.
Some evidence that backs up that claim would be nice. Again, the public option operates exactly as a private insurer would; it is open to the individual market and employers - those who cannot afford insurance on their own would receive subsidies when purchasing either a private or public insurer. Using your logic, a private option makes no sense without government subsidies.Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.
If the idea is to create competition then open up the market. Allow interstate competetion from Health insurance companies. I used to sell Health insurance we had maybe 3 to choose from. Most of our policies were written, went to the same two companies. Our clients were like "Thats all the choices i have?" pretty much yes. Health insurance should be just as competively qouted as life insurance, there is no excuse.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Umm, no. The public option would function exactly as private insurers do, and would be open to both individuals and employers (it gets a little complicated vis-a-vis the latter). If you cannot afford insurance the government will subsidize you, but they would do so regardless if you choose a private of public insurer, and even if there wasn't a public option the government would still subsidize those who cannot afford it. And those public subsidies aren't cheap. They have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is our pockets. Without the subsidies, nobody is going to buy the insurance unless their medical bills cost more than the premium, which is going to make the premiums even higher. Tax payer dollars will be permanently used to fund the program, and even if the taxes only go up for those making over $250,000, they will eventlually filter down to everyone (Republiocans will be eager to see to it the next time they hold power). If you run the numbers even taxing individuals that make 250k+ a year won't even come close to covering the increase in cost. Conservative estimates have put the number of people moving from private to public care, around 100 million. 100million times a conservative $3,000 year annual premium is $300 billion dollars a year.[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
Yeah, I beleive that :roll:
The company you work for pays a majority of the premiums. Who's going to pay the majority of the premiums for the public option? If the majority of the premiums aren't covered, it would cost way more moneythen the people who need it can afford. If the majority of the premiums are covered, that will eventually come out of our pockets.
psychobrew
Andan article own how Canada utilizes U.S. hospitals for care:
http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/
My favorite qoutes from the article:
"The Detroit Medical Center also provides Canadians complex trauma, cancer, neonatal and other care."
"Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works."
Should works be in its own " ", you decide.
SOLUTIONS: List of how to fix the system without expanding government control, by:
CEO and founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
Mr. Mackey got a lot of heat from his liberal customer base for this article.
Umm, no. The public option would function exactly as private insurers do, and would be open to both individuals and employers (it gets a little complicated vis-a-vis the latter). If you cannot afford insurance the government will subsidize you, but they would do so regardless if you choose a private of public insurer, and even if there wasn't a public option the government would still subsidize those who cannot afford it.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
Yeah, I beleive that :roll:
The company you work for pays a majority of the premiums. Who's going to pay the majority of the premiums for the public option? If the majority of the premiums aren't covered, it would cost way more moneythen the people who need it can afford. If the majority of the premiums are covered, that will eventually come out of our pockets.
tycoonmike
But if a company is run, not for profit wise, wouldn't the price for the coverage be ultimately less than any insurance company would be able to charge and still remain in business? Along with that, if the government ends up providing subsidized health care for any and all who desire it, there would be no incentive for it to be profitable, thus no incentive to be efficient and cut waste.
Thus we would end up with yet another program like the USPS: losing $3 billion a year while private companies like UPS perform the same function, often to a better quality, for the same price. Hell, the only reason why USPS is still in business is because the government pours billions of dollars into it. We ultimately are paying for USPS even if we don't use it to ship our packages or mail with our tax dollars. What makes you think this won't happen if the government opens up a health care service?
USPS also has a monopoly for 1st and 3rd class (?) mail. If Fedex and UPS were allowed to truely compete the USPS would be out of business.[QUOTE="fillini"]Thats not how it happens. When you start a new job, there is a period of open enrollment. Insurance companies don't pick or choose in instances like that, they take anyone. My wife had our first born three days after my insurance kicked in. three years before that she had a brain hemmorhage, she was picked up by her employer when she started, she got care for the past treatment. If your shopping for individual insurance its true, but the majority of americans get their insurance from employee plans. with insurance attached to a employment they can't screen because there's a government regulation that prevents is. however they know that the workforce is generally going to have less % of the sick than the general public. I have employer subsidized insurance as well but i only feel as secure in it as i do in my job and that can change from year to year. anyway the 47 million that don't have any coverage right now are mostly the working poor that don't get employee plans and don't qualify for government plan eitherAs I stated in an ealier post. the 46million uninsured is a misnomer. If you truely break that number down it will enlighten you to who what the government wants to cover, 12 million alone are illegal immigrants. anther 12+ million make more than 50k a year.[QUOTE="Ontain"] as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. Ontain
UK! please you guys had over 75 people die in 2007 of minor infections picked up from just overcrowding in your hospitals. Not to mention the ambulance lines. What is this? the uk was having such a long wait time in their ERs, two + hours, they enacted furhter legislation to MAKE the hospital see the patients within 45 minutes. Solution: park the ambulances outside with the patients in them, so the timer doesn't start. I don't think the UK gets it. Every time the citizens of the UK complain; their government says they just don't appreciate what they have and the papers tell a sob story of a new immigrant from Ghana who is sooo appreciative of the level of care they recvd.america jus get it. if it measns savibng the lives of say 100 people isn't it worth it. if the uk NEVER HAD OUR NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE well 1. id be **** 2. millions of doctors would be out of work 3. hudered of thousands would diebecause they cannot afored the insurance
BenBenBen93
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem? as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. Thats not how it happens. When you start a new job, there is a period of open enrollment. Insurance companies don't pick or choose in instances like that, they take anyone. My wife had our first born three days after my insurance kicked in. three years before that she had a brain hemmorhage, she was picked up by her employer when she started, she got care for the past treatment. If your shopping for individual insurance its true, but the majority of americans get their insurance from employee plans.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Ontain
Log in to comment