17 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you'd like to see 'free' health care for everyone everywhere.
I'd like to see the US join the mid-20th Century and adopt a single payer system; experience has shown that these function well.
However, only about 1/3 of Americans presently support moving to such a system. For now, it is a political impossibility. So we'll have to come up with a half-assed tinkering of the present costly and inefficient m ...[text shortened]... ng costs to the consumers which translate to big profits for a limited number of corporations.
Aren't they humans too, shouldn't countries with 'single payer systems' actually be giving health care to everyone. Just because the otheer countries can't afford it, well, that's all the more reason you should pay for them.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by WajomaWell, say I could decide where tax payer's money was spent on?
I want everyone to be healthy shav, there are a lot of very unhealthy people all through out Africa, what are you doing for them? Don't wait for regulation go right ahead and spend your life in the service of all the unhealthy people of the world.
It certainly wouldn't be soldiers, bailing out banks and back-handing rich imperialists.
I would feed the starving millions.
But hey, that's just me.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm with you there No1, you're starting to get the idea, see it does get in.
Can I not sign up for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or for enforcement of drug laws? Or many other things I don't think my government should be doing? I'd get a lot of money back.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by shavixmirAnd you should celebrate you shav, and your ideals and you should be able to pursue them, just don't force them on others.
Well, say I could decide where tax payer's money was spent on?
It certainly wouldn't be soldiers, bailing out banks and back-handing rich imperialists.
I would feed the starving millions.
But hey, that's just me.
cheers
17 Feb 10
getting back to sh76's plan. Obviously, Wajoma isn't going to support it.
But it sounds like something that would work reasonably well - and it might be able to attract lots of bipartisan support IF we could get everyone in Congress to abandon their entrenched positions. (maybe we'd have to change the name of "public option" to something else).
Perhaps a coalition of Snowe, Collins, Gregg, and Brown could get behind this?
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesA plan which gives a bunch of extra business to the insurance industry while stripping away all regulations on it is just more corporate welfare.
getting back to sh76's plan. Obviously, Wajoma isn't going to support it.
But it sounds like something that would work reasonably well - and it might be able to attract lots of bipartisan support IF we could get everyone in Congress to abandon their entrenched positions. (maybe we'd have to change the name of "public option" to something else).
Perhaps a coalition of Snowe, Collins, Gregg, and Brown could get behind this?
You would think the evidence of the last decade as regards the radical de-regulation of the financial industry and the consequences thereof would make the free market cheering section think twice, but apparently some lessons are just too hard to accept.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by WajomaNo, I'm saying YOUR suggestion is a flop.
That's the flaw in your argument. If your idea is so great you'd have no problem with people signing up - by choice. Including those that are happy to fund all those that cannot afford it.
Choice
C h o i c e
Or are you admitting it would be a flop
There are many, many examples of countries who provide higher quality healthcare, provide it for all and do so cheaper than the US.
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the proposal is not stripping away all regulations.
A plan which gives a bunch of extra business to the insurance industry while stripping away all regulations on it is just more corporate welfare.
You would think the evidence of the last decade as regards the radical de-regulation of the financial industry and the consequences thereof would make the free market cheering section think twice, but apparently some lessons are just too hard to accept.
The mere existence of a public option would act as a kind of regulator. It would be designed mainly for the chronically ill. But if the private sector refused to offer something that was better, people could still sign up for the public option.
The insurance companies would still have to abide by regulations that would prevent various types of fraud, or refusing to pay for stuff they promised they'd cover. The existence of real competition in every market would also prevent insurance companies from screwing with people - because if any horror stories get out, people will switch in droves to a competing company.
One of the main reasons for the financial mess was that we allowed banks to exist that were "too big to fail". So the free market's normal remedy of putting irresponsible banks out of business had to be thwarted by bailouts. This was bad. So I would agree that there would have to be regulations to make sure that none of the insurance companies became "too big to fail".
17 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesActually, the private insurance market for health care is more concentrated than the financial system ever was. As I mentioned earlier, two companies sell 36% of all policies in the US and the market in 96% of MSA's is considered "highly concentrated". By contrast, the five biggest banks controlled only 30% of the financial market before the 2008 "crash" (of course, that figure had only been 9% a decade earlier).
But the proposal is not stripping away all regulations.
The mere existence of a public option would act as a kind of regulator. It would be designed mainly for the chronically ill. But if the private sector refused to offer something that was better, people could still sign up for the public option.
The insurance companies would still have to abide be regulations to make sure that none of the insurance companies became "too big to fail".
You didn't read sh76's proposal carefully before endorsing it. He was rather clear:
Deregulation of private insurers and removal of their liability shield. They can deny for pre-existing conditions; sell across state lines. Whatever they want. They can also be sued for breach of contract to failing to pay for a procedure that they should have.(emphasis added)
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by sh76You are a voice of sanity in these forums.
Okay; something has to be done about the uninsured people who make too much to be on Medicaid but can't afford insurance premiums. Granted. I'm on record advocating that Medicaid or Medicare be expanded to cover these people (with affordable premiums, of course).
That having been said, I have a run-of-the-mill health insurance policy- certainly nothing speci ...[text shortened]... ngs could be worse than they are; and that maybe things really aren't that bad after all.
17 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay. I would add additional provisions aimed to creating as much competition in every market as possible. In addition to overall limits on how big an insurance company could become, I would also put limits on how much market share a company could have in a given market. I think sh76 might accept this sort of thing.
Actually, the private insurance market for health care is more concentrated than the financial system ever was. As I mentioned earlier, two companies sell 36% of all policies in the US and the market in 96% of MSA's is considered "highly concentrated". By contrast, the five biggest banks controlled only 30% of the financial market before the 2008 "crash" each of contract to failing to pay for a procedure that they should have.(emphasis added)
Also - with all the chronically sick and highest-risk people in the public option, insurance companies wouldn't need to create huge risk pools to make the whole thing work. This would allow smaller companies to get in on the action.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI bet you he won't.
Okay. I would add additional provisions aimed to creating as much competition in every market as possible. In addition to overall limits on how big an insurance company could become, I would also put limits on how much market share a company could have in a given market. I think sh76 might accept this sort of thing.
Also - with all the chronically sick ...[text shortened]... pools to make the whole thing work. This would allow smaller companies to get in on the action.
I would think there are really significant barriers to entry for the insurance market. I have my doubts that any government proposal could increase private market competitiveness without increasing the risk to consumers of fraud or inadequately capitalized companies.
I also think that since the insurance companies are getting a windfall by not having to insure high risk and high cost consumers while being assured of a larger at least partially subsidized market, they should have to pay an additional tax to help cover the costs to the public option for covering consumers that they won't for profit based reasons.
