Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Like maybe payin for your own?

Aw, marc'ie poo :star:

You're just a dipsh!t as usual who can't mind your manners and stay in the chopfvck thread rather wandering into serious bizznezz threads

Yeah thats gotta be it!

[rebeccajo 14]

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance.

That's the bottom line for me.

Health insurance and health care should not be 'for profit'.

It is unacceptable to me.

I just cannot see beyond that.

[HAL 9000 96]

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance.

That's the bottom line for me.

Health insurance and health care should not be 'for profit'.

It is unacceptable to me.

I just cannot see beyond that.

The way I'd like to see it is that it COULD be for profit as long as the profit being had isn't a gouging profit. First and foremost, it should be well-being at the top of the list of priorities. All else should be quite the distant second. Of course, when greed runs rampant and any attempt at controlling it is met with cries of the big bad socialism bug... its not hard to see what ridiculous logic feeds the fearmongering monster.

Speaking of well-being, time for an 'early' bedtime. 125-I Radiation awaits me in the morning and I need to be waky waky in the morning instead of having it spill on the bench.

[mRx 16]

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance.

That's the bottom line for me.

Health insurance and health care should not be 'for profit'.

It is unacceptable to me.

I just cannot see beyond that.

Becca,

Name one industry that's not about profit.

[mRx 16]

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance.

That's the bottom line for me.

Health insurance and health care should not be 'for profit'.

It is unacceptable to me.

I just cannot see beyond that.

The way I'd like to see it is that it COULD be for profit as long as the profit being had isn't a gouging profit.

What's gouging though? That's very subjective vernacular, Mr. Hal.

If fellow entrepeneurial insurance providers find such a profit to be gouging, then they will enter the industry and bring the cost down.

[Niels Bohr 72]

My theory is correct. The Republican want to bloat the insurance profits. Muwhahahaha!

If that side can come up with a solution to lower the cost without regulating the insurance companies, then I'll love them forever. But, I don't have that too high of an optimism. Next word from them I hear is defering the problems to the Democrats like always.

[mawilson 2,133]

If fellow entrepeneurial insurance providers find such a profit to be gouging, then they will enter the industry and bring the cost down.

Not really, as there are significant barriers to entry. A system which requires that insurers take everyone

regardless of health status and cover all pre-existing conditions requires a very large risk pool of insureds

to offset costs. Only very large insurance companies can make it work.

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance.

That's the bottom line for me.

Health insurance and health care should not be 'for profit'.

It is unacceptable to me.

I just cannot see beyond that.

Doctors work 'for profit'. When doctors start treating people for free, health care will no longer be about profit.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Interesting perspective MAWILSON.

So, you say that having a large insurance company as oppose to many will reduce cost because carrying large risks of pre-existing conditions could only be handled by them. Well, took you long enough to feed that information. Hey, we sheeps need that input. Quit hold back!

[mawilson 2,133]

Interesting perspective MAWILSON.

So, you say that having a large insurance company as oppose to many will reduce cost because carrying large risks of pre-existing conditions could only be handled by them. Well, took you long enough to feed that information. Hey, we sheeps need that input. Quit hold back!

But yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. If your entire pool consists of 1000 people, you have no choice

but to pick and choose who you can cover - one sick individual can put you out of business. If you have

1,000,000 people in the risk pool, the numbers change.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I admit some stuff you say are valuable and some aren't. Although, you have better reasoning skills than a few others.

[mawilson 2,133]

I admit some stuff you say are valuable and some aren't. Although, you have better reasoning skills than a few others.

Thanks brother consolemaster!

[scandal 951]

Interesting perspective MAWILSON.

So, you say that having a large insurance company as oppose to many will reduce cost because carrying large risks of pre-existing conditions could only be handled by them. Well, took you long enough to feed that information. Hey, we sheeps need that input. Quit hold back!

But yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. If your entire pool consists of 1000 people, you have no choice

but to pick and choose who you can cover - one sick individual can put you out of business. If you have

1,000,000 people in the risk pool, the numbers change.

Ok, but America has over 300million residents. And yet we still have certain jurisdictions in the country that have essentially only a single massive private insurance provider.

Here was Paul Krugman today on that:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politic...8866&page=4

KRUGMAN: You know, it probably does. But one would have to look at what's in there. But there's a reason for the public option, which is that we are not sure. The big issue is going to be cost control. And you want to try everything you can to control costs. And the public option is something that might do a lot. It might not, but it's one of those things that looks plausible. And you don't want to miss any opportunity because there's so many things that can go wrong.

I'm really struck when Grassley talks. You know, he talks about free markets, he talks about competition. There isn't any competition in this lots of this market. Iowa, 71 percent of health insurance in Iowa is supplied by just one company, Wellmark.

So we're talking about, you know, actually giving people more choice, more competition. Why shouldn't that be a central plank of the reform?

To my layman's eye, if you have a market where one company has 71% market share and you've determined that this is unhealthy and you want to stimulate competition, fine. But why can't we do that through the market? We know how to end monopolies. We did it with AT&T, with railroads, with oil companies. We very nearly did it to Microsoft!! Why not take Wellmark, as an example, and "RBOC" it into 2 or 3 separate companies that each have sufficient market share to retain an economy of scale, yet suddenly are required to compete with each other to attract consumers, just as any other business does? Why wouldn't that get the benefits of reduced costs, improved service delivery and efficiencies? And, since there is a genuine concern for getting those with pre-existing conditions covered, either regulate the new baby-Wellmarks that they MUST have a certain fraction of their covered population be from these folks, or provide an incentive through grants and/or tax breaks to make it worth their while to start offering coverage. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it. We have a monopolistic system. Fine. We've had them before. What makes this one so different?

I admit some stuff you say are valuable and some aren't. Although, you have better reasoning skills than a few others.

Thanks brother consolemaster!

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't know. I can only guess that the insurance companies are very well connected - much better than AT&T ever was.