Government insurance will kill private insurance
posted at 1:45 pm on June 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Democrats have taken great care to make the new health-care plans hitting the House and Senate this week look like anything but single-payer, socialized medicine. They insist that they want to maintain the private insurers in the market and give Americans choices in coverage. However, by pushing for a government-run plan to “keep insurers honest,” they have created a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, as Ronald Baily explains at Reason:
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Barack Obama declared that “it’s time to deliver” on health care reform. In a letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), President Obama wrote, “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.” This week Sen. Kennedy released a draft of his proposed “American Health Choices Act” which includes one such optional public health insurance plan. The administration’s goal is to report that bill out of the relevant Senate committees by the end of this month.
Earlier this week, Republican lawmakers sent a letter of their own, strongly warning the president that “Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition.”
When have we seen this before? Oh, yes … Medicare:
Defenders of the public option quickly point out that Kennedy’s American Health Choices Act promises to pay health care providers 10 percent more than Medicare. But as the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner noted at Cato@Liberty, “When Medicare began, proponents promised it would reimburse at the same rate as insurance. That promise didn’t last long.” In fact, in his letter to Kennedy and Baucus, Obama explicitly endorsed the idea of setting mandatory physician and hospital reimbursement rates through the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. In other words, the payments would no longer be merely advisory.
Government doesn’t exist to turn a profit, nor does it face competition. That’s why, in part, government operates so inefficiently. We put up with that in certain areas, like the military, because we don’t want private groups arming themselves with tanks, bombers, and armies and navies. In most other areas, we prefer the private sector, as competition usually gets us the best products and services at the best prices.
Government exists to service its interests, at least in its present form. Mostly, it serves to further itself. Any government bureaucracy that sees danger in competition will work to eliminate it. The dynamic in health-care plans would not be government making private insurers “more honest”, but in squeezing them out of the marketplace to create a monopoly. Since government doesn’t have to show a profit to exist, it will simply low-ball the other insurers on price until they all drop out of the health-care field. In an ironic way, it’s similar to how Standard Oil built its monopoly, which the government had to bust in order to get real choice and competition in the gasoline market.
Any public option offered by the government will be nothing more than a virus at the heart of the plan, through which the statists can push through a single-payer national health care system, and it won’t take that long to get it. Once the insurers understand the dynamic, they will run away from their health-care plans at lightning speed, leaving the field to Medicare, or whatever new name the Left dreams up for it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
How is it not? Once the US Government becomes the largest health care payer it will dictate ALL medical services.
If the medical community refuses, the US Government can change the law to force them to conform.
And voila… VA model.
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 3:45 PM
That is utterly and patently false. You are not stuck. You can opt-out of your employers insurance and get your own somewhere else. It may cost more, but you do have a choice!
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So you know that’s what SCHIP effectively did and you’re all for it…
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
The Public Plan Deception – It’s Not About Choice
A must-see video.
The crowds cheer as Schakowsky announces that their plan will “put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.”
From Yale University Political Science Professor Hacker, the source of the plan: “Someone once said to me, ‘this is a Trojan horse for single-payer.’ And I said, ‘it’s not a Trojan horse, right, it’s just right there.”
obladioblada on June 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Ok so same logic under Obama’s plan. You can get your own insurance. You can also go pay out of pocket if you feel like it. You could fly to India too. Obama is not nationalizing every single doctor in America.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Your employer will be required to provide insurance and he will be required to treat it as taxable income. That means it will give your gross income a boost to a higer bracket.
seven on June 10, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Congress needs to prove it can be trusted with our health care by first straightening out Medicare, Social Security and the VA. So far, their track record is not so good.
obladioblada on June 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Well, what you want and what Rahm Emanuel wanted during the period for which you’re blaming Republicans for intransigence are two different things, then, aren’t they?
I’m not thrilled with an individual mandate. I can see individual welfare losses with it. That seems incontestable. I would much prefer a Swiss-style system with a mandate and many competing not-for-profit insurers (and for-profits, too, if they can hack it). What I don’t want is the government as a player-referee.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
AnninCa didn’t seem to want to answer this, maybe you would..
What’s wrong with government giving tax credits for all private medical insurance? Even to those who didn’t make an income could a refund to recover the cost of insurance.
Government’s not in the business of providing health care and everyone gets covered.
Win-Win.
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM
But how can it’s “success” be ignored? They’ve had literally decades to try and improve the VA system, and it only gets worse. I offer it as an example of the government running healthcare, not as a particular model type. Should we ignore the failures of the IRS, USPS and DMV when considering giving them a shot at running healthcare, too?
DrAllecon on June 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM
You’re so easy. We looked at:
Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Europe, the former western, and eastern. They’re moving away from what you wish to move toward. Precedent speaks louder than Utopian idealism.
Schadenfreude on June 10, 2009 at 3:55 PM
This will be what people will look like before and after ObamaCare
MB4 on June 10, 2009 at 3:55 PM
The left wants the whole enchilada. Healthcare is a 2+ TRILLION market. If all that money needs to go to Washington before it gets disbursed, just how much do you think will get skimmed? And guess what kind of rationing is left for us? Better stock up on herbs and supplements, and get some alternative healers on the rolodex.
Mark30339 on June 10, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Hoo hum. There are plenty of single payer health care systems out there with viable private health care providers. The two systems aren’t mutually exclusive.
lexhamfox on June 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM
The problem with what you are suggesting is that you are relying on the same broken insurance companies.
What exactly do insurance companies, besides approving claims, rejecting claims, and reimbursing doctors or charging employers/people?
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Understatement of the century. If he could, he’d “nationalize” every one on the planet.
Schadenfreude on June 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Under Obama’s plan you will not obtain other insurance, because private insurance companies will cease to exist. No company can compete against the limitless power of the fed and be viable.
You obviously have no clue how much of your income the govt. will require to pay for universal care. You think private insurance is expensive now? You have a rude awakening in your future. Obamacare will cause a shortage of M.D.’s, (especially specialists) as no one in their right mind would consider taking on the expense of medical school knowing that they are going to be reimbursed for their services at mere cents on a dollar. Who wants to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for the rest of their lives?
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM
If anybody needs to see an example of what this thread is discussing, sit back and watch The Ford Motor Company try to stay away from g’ment money while GM and Chrysler get to operate without regard to the bottom line.
DanMan on June 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Government wouldn’t be running healthcare, they would simply replace the insurer middle man. And not even, since Obama is proposing to still have those around anyways for those that love getting their claims denied.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I understand your point but I think in many cases those private plans are supplemental in nature. They aren’t directly competing for primary care coverage with the single payer. Maybe you could provide a few examples.
Keep in mind, though, that that won’t satisfy Redglen. He wants some insurance company scalps! Blood! Bloooooood!
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Great photo, MB4! Although I must say, not too many of us look like the “before” pix!
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Whether he really means that or not is the subject of the thread, friend. Try to keep up.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I am constantly wondering why, when legislators and activists realize that they will have to lie to us about the true nature of a proposal, they do not realize that makes it morally wrong and they do not stop.
Naive? Perhaps. But it measures the extent to which many of us have lost our moral compass.
If you have to lie about the results of a given measure, then that measure is just wrong. Citizens who observe this should toss the perps out at the next election.
But as voters, we have reached the point where many of us excuse this, and that is exactly what is causing many of our diffuculties these days.
ElRonaldo on June 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM
And if you don’t think government insurers deny claims, you’re fooling yourself. Ever heard of de-listing?
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM
How is that different from this?
How does government magically make this better?
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM
That may be true, but those particular countries are not helmed by an egomaniacal control freak who is so power hungry that he himself threatens businesses with the “madman theory of the presidency” if they do not bend to his will.
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 4:07 PM
They will make this better by creating one insurance pool, and by structuring the system in a logical way where people can’t be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, where everyone is actually insured, etc.
They will also save costs by not having to pay the multimillion salaries of health insurance executives.
Again, I fail to see what services these insurer provide that make you all so in love with them.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Personally I’d rather just pay my doctor directly. It was people like Obama who told me I had to buy insurance so that “everyone” could be covered. Now I have to pay 10 times the amount I used to pay to see a Doctor when I just paid on my own.
I’m against government control of a business that can so easily be used to be controlled (and will be used to control) every aspect of my life.
BTW, doesn’t “one” insurance pool go against where you were saying we’d still be able buy private insurance?
Of course, on the bright side, if this passes and once we get Republican control of the government again, we can stop government payment of abortions…
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
If you think that the federal government will not be denying claims for services and individuals deemed too costly, non-compliant or politically disfavored, you’re seriously naive. They already do.
obladioblada on June 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
So, you were a pilot for “Air America” or “Air Asia”…eh?
Geezer on June 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Obama voters! Ooops, I meant our grandkids.
Laura in Maryland on June 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
My, that is a lovely little dream world you dwell in!
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM
The “one pool” will be comprised of all people part of that plan. The idea is to spread risk across more than just the 50 employees working at firm X or worse when people get their own coverage.
I think you can’t go without insurance because health insurance, at its core, is not like a Prada bag. Everyone should have it, everyone should be in it. Especially because we have a public policy of not letting people die.
I am saying of the government denies claims, worse case you will be able to pay for care on your own, something you can also do today.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 4:18 PM
No one is forcing you to move out of the world where insurers and not doctors are making the decisions for your care and where insurance is overpriced. If you want to stay there, Obama’s plan won’t change that.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM
There are lots of private plans available in the UK and those cover primary care as well as the supplimental care you mention. Many employers still add this kind of cover as a benefit. It allows users to pick and choose… my mother recently had fused bones in her feet and she could hardly walk. She wanted an expert so she went out and engaged the same surgeon who operated on D Beckhams foot. Even for this level of care from a widely respected expert was about 2/3rds the cost of the same proceedure in the US. Astounding when you think that this was when sterling was just over $2. For her rehab, visiting nurse, painkillers, and follow ups she went with the NHS… no charge. I can provide plenty of other examples but the notion that private care or personal choice will go out the window in a single payer is nonsense.
lexhamfox on June 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Ya know, this is really the crux of it. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DICTATE TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE?
Seriously, where do you and the other liberal idiots think you have the right or moral authority to tell people what they have to do? I am so sick and tired of that stupid, UNAMERICAN bullsh!t.
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I keep expecting interest groups to start running advertisements trying to educate the public that this is crap. But, free speech and opposing views have systmatically been squashed.
The AMA like the ABA are all moonbats. Otherwise, I would expect doctors to be actively opposing ObammyCrapCare.
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM
If you had ever been hospitalized for an extended period, or had a major surgery, you would have a different view of private insurance and its value. You are spewing talking point after talking point with very little understanding of the effluvium emitting from your keyboard.
If you don’t think that available health care services will be reduced, in more demand, and be much harder and take much longer to procure under a government-administered plan (single-payer or otherwise), you are either delusional or not very adept at logical reasoning.
hillbillyjim on June 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM
And when government provides food and shelter for all then we can start talking about the health care Prada bag…
Not before.
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM
mycowardice…it is true that we will have both options as the Obama Plan is currently written. However, as many experts are now saying, private plans will cease to exist because they will be undercut by the public plan.
Here’s what happens next. As private plans disappear, the most qualified and educated doctors will flee the public plan structure. The well off will be able to afford their services, but after the outcry from the class warfare mongers, the Obama Plan will be modified to forbid medical personnel from providing care outside of the public plan (aka single provider)?
It must be easy to go through life when you live in a dream world where there are no repercussions to bad decisions.
RedinPDRM on June 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM
mycowardice: catch on man! when the govt nationalizes our healthcare, you will be paying not only for yourself (as part of your gross income), you will also be paying for everyone who doesn’t work (taxes based on your adjusted gross income). you will pay twice
and then there is the issue as to whether we want the federal govt running healthcare. when was the last time the federal govt did something correctly?
kelley in virginia on June 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM
my cowardice: i just looked at my copy of the Constitution. healthcare is not mentioned anywhere as a right. when my husband gets home, i can get him to search all his SCOTUS & state SC data bases to see if any court has found a right to healthcare. then he can search all state codes to see if any state has made healthcare a right.
until then, i don’t feel the need to pay for everyone else to have everything on demand.
kelley in virginia on June 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Yes, that’s true, it would simply replace one middle man with another. That does nothing to contain costs – it keeps the current broken detachment of consumers and providers, which is the true root of the cost explosion. How would that make the situation any better? How would it simultaneously allow ALL claims and have it cost less?
You mention denied claims. How is that any different than care received in Canada? There they have virtual denied claims – waiting lists as long as years for cancer treatment. BTW, there’s no appeal, you must wait your turn. Those “no denial of care” waits can be fatal, rather than bankrupt.
JeffWeimer on June 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Tell that to the people of Canada. Their alternative is to come here because it’s illegal to provide private health care in Canada. Poor Canadians. Where are they going to go when Obama destroys this country’s health care system.
You act like the Obama plan is going to stay forever like it currently is in its draft state. These people have no intention of “fixing” health care. They want to increase control and add to their voting block of the entitled. Any attempts to actually fix the system after they totally screw it up will be decried just as they do with Social Security, now.
RedinPDRM on June 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
With this you neutralize your argument. After mocking private claims denials (@3:57) and implicitly suggesting government health care won’t do THAT, you blithely admit it could happen, but no big deal, you already have that option now anyway. If Obamacare is going to be no better, then why go through the expense and trouble if it’s not going to do any good?
JeffWeimer on June 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
DrSteve is correct about the UK for those that can afford it after paying 50% of their income in taxes and paying the exorbitant VAT. However, there is another country closer to our borders that doesn’t allow private health care in their single payer system.
What seems to be lost in all of the arguments above is the impact to our pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. is the primary producer of new drugs. Say goodbye to all of that when the public plan demands generic prices for new drugs. I know that the pharmas are great targets because of the seemingly costly prices for new drugs. But, research and FDA testing is costly, also, particularly when a small percentage of drugs actually make it to market.
RedinPDRM on June 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM
And the problem with getting rid of insurance companies out to fleece me is…?
SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
My wife’s sister and brother-in-law are both nurses in Vancouver, she is an Operating Room Supervisor and he is a Geriatric Nurse. They substantiate all we have heard concerning the delays, rationing and other difficulties in obtaining treatment that drives our friends to the North to flee to America for quality health care.
And now we should become like Canada? Where could we go for help, Mexico??
Pray that the Obama Government keeps it’s hands OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!
As the old saying goes “It’s not perfect but it’s 1000% better than the next choice!”
skyknight on June 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Not a good idea if the plan is to replace it with the government that will still fleece you and then not allow you to sue them because, heeeeeyyy… they’re the government!
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Every time government enters a sector for the benefit of one group. It invariably creates new winners and losers.
It then attempts to perputally chase the so called “losers” to prop them up.
This requires greater and greater control of the sector.
Until, everyone is a winner in the eyes of the government but we are all really losers.
The government has been trying to “fix” healthcare since the 1960’s. I am sure Obama is the one to get it right.
WichoFawkes on June 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM
KrisinNE on June 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I had hip replacement at 32 years old. I am concerned that I won’t “qualify” for the next hip I will need in 5 – 10 years.
AnnainCA must have never had a health issue otherwise she wouldn’t be spewing the utterly uninformed posts on this thread.
txag92 on June 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Government wouldn’t be running healthcare, they would simply replace the insurer middle man. And not even, since Obama is proposing to still have those around anyways for those that love getting their claims denied.
Uhhh… mycowardice, who exactly do you think the middleman is? In the current system, government is the middleman. In the proposed new system, they are the man, the middle man, and the last man. This is a lose-lose situation, but Obama isn’t going to admit that. I have a feeling that history will be none-to-kind to our current President after all this wrecks what semblance of a free market we have left.
exiledelephant on June 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Unfortunately when you have a public mandated single payer system and a private system you end up paying for BOTH of them, so that you can get basic services in a timely manner. Thus you pay for healthcare you can’t get, due to rationing and health care you can get if you can afford it, which is paying for all those who can’t afford it… and why should I be paying for them?
When those pointing to being able to have both say there is no problem to it, they do not address the high taxation that goes with paying for the unaffordable. Germany’s much lauded system has a problem: they will not abide by EU guidelines to actually measure effectiveness. So no matter the anectodotal evidence, the fact is that the German government is trying to get out of many areas of health care to move to a private competative system as it is cheaper than a government run one. Or else they wouldn’t be doing that. And you still wind up with high taxes and paying for effective service for yourself and ineffective service for those who can’t pay directly.
I don’t see how that is in any way, shape or form better than the charitable hospital systems the US had before we subsidized health care, so that the poor would be taken care of by private charities. When we subsidized health care we drove the costs through the roof and started killing private, charitable hospitals as they could not compete against subsidized health care. When government takes it over you have little charity left as your money goes to government to decide how to spend it. That is not liberty in any way, shape or form.
As a Nation founded on the concept of liberty, asking for government to do it for you so you can pay someone else to do it effectively while still paying government is asinine in the extreme. It is our responsibility as citizens to take care of our poor through charity, and government to be lean and do very few things so we can create a stronger society through charity and spending our own time helping each other.
I have problems enough with multiple conditions and a private insurer, and government regulations are already impacting my access to necessary medications. Putting more ‘regulations’ onto such a system is a direct and vital threat to those with multiple conditions who already spend a good portion of their lives making sure they get treated. Start rationing that, or driving costs still higher with a public AND private system and you will have the worst of both worlds.
But then I see health care as an exercise in liberty.
Not a right.
And we are born free.
ajacksonian on June 10, 2009 at 5:40 PM
+1000
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Mr. President, still think this is a good idea?
ExPat on June 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Additionally, it creates a shortage of doctors so private care is still adversely affected.
mycowardice is a student. Not very worldly, has never held a job, young, and naive.
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM
I have no doubt that this is going to destroy private insurers. Socialized medicine will not work as it hasn’t worked anywhere else in the world. Liberals can argue all the want about the many countries where they have socialized medicine, but the reality is that none of those countries pay doctors on time or at all, access to medicine is very restricted, and patients are far from covered or even treated. And trust me- I know. I come from a third world country.
There are many reasons I believe they are pushing for this (special interests, populism, ideology, etc) but recently I hear from a doctor one more reason I hadn’t considered. Since baby boomers are beginning to retire and we know Social Security is bankrupt and unable to cover everyone, the only way to get back on track (if that is even possible) is to jump coverage for two generations. Socialized medicine will give them decision making over who and what gets covered so it’d be very easy to deny enough people to put SS in the black again.
The reality is that even if this was the case who can tell if that rationing would end two generations from now? We have had Medicare, Medicaid, and SS for how long now and these are government run health care programs. How well do they run?
Soon the government will tell you what cars you can drive, what light bulbs you can use, when can your appliances run (the so called smart grid and smart appliances), how many miles you can drive, and if you can get sick or not (and if you will get treated).
ptcamn on June 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Income tax isn’t 50% in the UK and there are plenty of European pharmaceutical companies producing new, innovative drugs despite having national healthcare across the Union.
lexhamfox on June 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM
That’s because they can sell them in the largest market (the US) for a premium.
dpierson on June 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I was in Alberta, Canada a few weeks ago. One of the lead news stories was that the Province was running out of health care funds and would have to make some cuts in services. The proposed cuts were to eliminate funding for sex change operations. As the protests were heating up it sounded like the Provincial government would have to reconsider taking away this right. Point being once you grant the freebees it is very hard to take them away.
Just a preview of things to come for the good old USA.
crazedarmenian on June 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Another industry soon to be wiped out by the h0ly savi0r. My ex-wife works in the insurance industry (primarily health) and everyone in her company is so scared s**tless and stressed out right now, knowing that in just a few short years, or less, they’ll be out of a job. Thousands and thousands more to stand in the unemployment line. Say what you want about insurance companies, but a helluva lot of good, hardworking everyday Americans work for them. Unfortunately, it looks like not for long.
noworldcitizen on June 10, 2009 at 6:16 PM
This is totally off-topic, but important nonethless,from moonbattery.com
The Philadelphia Women’s Center gave away free abortions Tuesday in honor of Dr. George Tiller, the abortionist who was murdered last week by an anti-abortion extremist.
OMFG!!
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on June 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Private insurance is just a little better than Govt insurance.
I.E.:
3rd party payer is only slightly better than single party payer.
The key to health care is to stop both and make everyone pay for health care like they pay for any service, CASH.
Then free market/individual payer regulate prices and distribution.
TheSitRep on June 10, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I’m going to enjoy having obama, pelosi, and bawny fwank making health care decisions for me.
elduende on June 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Ann is a proven liar…pay her no mind…
ladyingray on June 10, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Link
It has happened and Obama will nationalize health care providers when they all try to bail from this lunatic plan.
MidWestFarmer on June 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Kids like mycowardice are terrifying. The current healthcare mess was created by mandates from the left like him. Now he has the gaul to say only mama government can fix the very problem it created?
Holy Jesus child, are you for real?
You want to solve the problem? Let Wal-Mart address the problem like it has started to in several test markets with nurse practitioners.
ClassicCon on June 10, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I expect the gov’t sponsored healthplan to enforce an “opt-in” proviso, as is done now for Medicare. Physicians electing not to participate will have little recourse in getting paid for their services, or effectively barred from seeing national healthplan patients. Currently, with your private health plan you (in theory) have some recourse for denied services (bitch at the medical director, call the ombudsman, change plans). How do you expect the government to respond?
dgstock1947 on June 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM
This may just spell salvation for the economy of Mexico. If they are smart, they will start setting up clinics on the border like mad, offering care for Americans who can’t get it in the U.S. At least that way, those of who aren’t rich enough to “skip the lines” or aren’t members of congress might still be able to save our lives by puttting them in the hands of Mexican health care workers.
That may only give you a 50/50 chance of surviving, but that’s better then the 0% you’ll get while you “wait” for Obamacare to get around to you, or they’ve just plain said “no” because you’re 15 lbs over weight and didn’t do your mandatory state-led exercises yesterday.
Fatal on June 10, 2009 at 7:11 PM
We’re sorry Mr. Public but your gummint insurance card shows the wrong political affiliation, our book-keepers over at ACORN report you didn’t vote for Obambi and next on the donor organ quota recipient list is a one-legged hyphenated-American lesbian more “entitled” than you for that liver you requested. Try to hang in there a few years longer.
Nurse Ratched!! This cracker, uh, I mean patient is ready for you to practice your “Inserting IV’s for Without Completely Botching Them for Dummies” exercises.
viking01 on June 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Basically, the entity that makes the Rules, wants to “compete” with private industry. Yea, there’s no socialism here, move along.
Troy Rasmussen on June 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM
It’s come down to either it’s me or Obama!
He has made more than half my 401k plan disappear.
He has depleted SS.
He wants to tax my employee health plan which will be around $1500 and rationed it.
Or,force me into some shitty gov plan which will cost me more monthly and provide crappy and rationed care.
He wants me to pay for everyone else’s healthcare by raising my taxes.
And he wants to raise taxes over all.
Plus, since the donks control my state and local governments, they are raising taxes as much as they can.
So, either I spend my old age in poverty or OBAMA MUST GO!
Obama — What a dick!
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM
I love it when people speculate on personal attributes. If you can form such a precise opinion on so little facts, I really recommend buying a few lottery tickets.
You know what, take a look at the Constitution, and take a look at Federal laws including dozens and dozens that have passed SCOTUS approval and you will see the Constitution is quite light as compare to what actually takes place and what is seen by the courts as valid exercise of Federal power.
You can start taking a look at the commerce clause and see what has qualified as constitutionally valid legislation under that.
When you are done, we can have a more realistic discussion on what is and isn’t in the constitution.
All I am saying is that the floor will be as good as it is today. It’s just like veterans. No veteran is prevented from paying out of his own pocket and going to any doctor he or she likes. If this option is good enough to not make waiting in line the only option, then I am saying you have that option.
I think the system will give better access to people that right now cannot benefit from a real group policy. Plus, we fail to understand what insurance is. Insurance is about spreading risk. At the core it’s not really about providing bbenefits. This case is a bit weird. It is about spreading risk (say the risk of having a heart attack at one end or breaking your finger on another end), but it’s also about known expenses we know everyone will face (regular checkups, vaccination, etc.). We know everyone needs healthcare. We don’t have Terminator like humans yet, so instead of finding a solution that spreads the risks (and the costs) better and ensure everyone is covered, conservatives/Republicans keep on pushing for a system that is broken and refuse to let “the rest of us” create our own pool to address the problem.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM
The funny thing is that this solution might have passed had Republican proposed it during the time they were in control. I am not necessarily against such a proposal. But the problem is that people “on the other side” keep on pushing for the status quo which isn’t a solution. Instead of the right coming up with a real proposal that might address the problem, they seem to only talk about red herring like tort reform or give the impression private health insurers are the best thing since slice bread.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Oh, can it, moonbat! You have a long internet record.
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Hey everybody. I guess this is what confuses me about the insurance issue.
1.) If private insurance companies can’t compete, doesn’t that mean a public plan is more competitive and thus better?
2.) So far we have had all private insurance companies, and they’ve left out nearly 1/6 of the population….can we admit that the private sector failed to provide in this case?
I appreciate your responses…I’m curious!
Bill59 on June 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Anything else other than “moonbat”?
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
That’s hardly a winning argument against such a proposal. In fact it’s closer to a schoolyard taunt than an argument.
Even Peter Orszag, as recently as yesterday, suggested that there is something to the relationship between malpractice suits and defensive medicine. And for the record, opinion polling on satisfaction with one’s own health insurance plan is pretty consistently positive.
Look, as far as I’m concerned we have a solution staring us in the face. The Swiss have a vibrant and competitive set of private insurers, they are spending less (though not far less) on care than we are without poorer outcomes and with greater levels of coverage, they are effectively controlling price increases, and they haven’t wrecked their very fine pharmaceutical industry.
We can have a system like that without massive disruptions to existing insurers and without a fundamentally unstable player-referee role for the government.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM
My point isn’t to taunt. It’s just that there are many solutions, maybe many that are good, but what makes them better can be a question of ideology and perception rather than a objective way of measuring them. I think the plan you propose fit more with a Republican ideology, so the best people that should have pushed that plan through were the Republicans.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Hey, curious Bill.
(1) No, the concern is that the government will subsidize the public plan, so that the price at the point of consumer consideration won’t reflect real costs. In economics we call this “inefficient substitution.” The government might also exempt the public plan from some costly regulations, or subject the entire industry to price controls. I really have no problem with a public option funded entirely by premia and copayments, but I don’t think we can expect it to stay that way. Like I said, “player-referee” is an unstable arrangement.
(2) It’s not the point of a private system to cover everyone, so you’re applying an inappropriate yardstick. Risk-neutral people will only fully insure at actuarially fair rates. Risk-preferring people may not self-insure at all.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM
So far we have had all private insurance companies, and they’ve left out nearly 1/6 of the population….can we admit that the private sector failed to provide in this case?
I appreciate your responses…I’m curious!
Bill59 on June 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
So the “private sector” somehow owes that alleged one-sixth something that fraction chooses not to purchase? I want a Lamborghini but don’t have one therefore if the private sector has failed to provide one there should be one provided for me? Beam me up Scotty. Beam me up!
viking01 on June 10, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Are you comparing health insurance to a Lamborghini?
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Most people of normal intelligence would be able to substitute some other product and still get the point. You’re obviously not dumb, so stop being intentionally obtuse.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Quite the opposite. It shows where some people are coming from. Instead of putting health care along the lines of a basic necessity (like say access to public schools or having police protection), people talk about health care like it’s some kind of luxury item that is akin to a Lamborghini. It’s hard to have a serious dialog about health care where two sides come from totally opposite perspectives.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:42 PM
I love it when snot-nosed, know-it-all kids assume their imperious manner around those who are obviously more seasoned and knowledgeable than they are. As they begin to speak the air becomes simply perfumed with their moral superiority.
I just laugh, and laugh, and laugh!
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Sure. You’e a student, have never held a real job, depend on mommy and daddy, are immature, and suffer under a delusion that you should be taken seriously. Oh, and you’re a troll.
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Ahhh! Another person familiar with the coward.
Blake on June 10, 2009 at 9:53 PM
I guess the record will show that when the going got tough, the “tough” resorted to ad hominem attacks.
How would you know Blake that I have never held a real job?
Also Puddleglum, I don’t pretend to be a “know it all”, I just state my opinion, and the reasons behind it. Anything beyond that and you are extrapolating.
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Yes, you would call tort reform a red herring. If you were in favor of limiting lawyers you would be guilty of goring your own bull (or future bull, as it were).
I happen to share William Shakespeare’s sentiments concerning lawyers.
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I’m quite sure you’re not pretending. You really believe it.
Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM
I thought his point was more akin to the one I was making about constructivist rationalism — markets don’t guarantee things. They weren’t designed to. In fact, they weren’t designed to do anything. Let’s stop holding them to that standard.
I completely accept your point that we’re starting from very different premises.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 10:03 PM
OK, ‘night, all! I’ve finally succumbed to the Merlot.
DrSteve on June 10, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Is TOTUS only interested in competitive insurance for health care? What about auto/homeowners/life insurance/commercial insurance??
TN Mom on June 10, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Part of the big problem is that healh insurance is really disfunctional, but the same cannot be said of other insurance systems. (at least it’s not comparable)
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Well duh…YOU are free to start your own group insurance policy (like the AARP does).
Maybe you could explain… the US pays the most, per capita for… public education… more than any other country. And yet our students are ranked lower than other countries that spend less.
Why is that?
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Not sure, but how many of the countries you are comparing us to have private education systems?
mycowardice on June 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Not the point.
Our health system is “bad” because, supposedly out health care figures are lower than other countries with public health systems while ours is private. But yet, Canadians and Britains come HERE to get surgeries performed because their own systems are overloaded and everybody knows our health system is top notch.
But it must be the “private” part that makes it suck… right?
And yet, we spend more on our public schools than any other nation, including those with public school systems and our education system… sucks. Factually.
Ergo… Going to a public system doesn’t make it better and certainly may make it worse.
Skywise on June 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Here comes the Health Insurance Czar!
“I will not have Lobbyist in my administration”
…just Unions & Czars who answer only to me…
TN Mom on June 10, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »