NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_go_co/health_care_overhaul

"Giving Americans the option of buying medical coverage through the government — an idea put forth by President Barack Obama — is a potential deal breaker for some Republicans and insurance companies whose support would ease the way for a health care overhaul.

The proposal, which Obama advocated in his presidential campaign, would for the first time offer government-sponsored coverage to middle class families, as an alternative to private health plans. By some estimates, it could reduce premiums by 20 percent or more — making it much more affordable to cover the estimated 48 million people who don't have health coverage.

But insurers fear competition from a government plan could drive them out of business, and Republicans worry it would lead to a government takeover of health care. Liberals, meanwhile, are equally adamant that Americans deserve the choice of government-sponsored health care."

I'm confused - every time the subject of nationalised institutions comes up, it is clearly argued that government-run industry simply cannot compete with the free market and private enterprise.

The questions then - would be:

1) how can introducing a government option in the free market, be cheaper than the current free market alternatives?

2) Isn't the simple fact that the insrance industry is complaining they could be 'drvien out of business', evidence that 'the free market' is failing and prices are artificial, now?

3) If it's cheaper, and it covers everyone... wouldn't it be better to have this system anyway, even if it DID drive 'the insurance industry' out of business?

Wow. The insurance company doesn't want competition. Imagine that. ;)

it would happen because the price of government insurance would be set by politicians without regard to actual costs involved. with the govt insurance operating at a loss, it would easily out compete the for profit insurance companies.

it would happen because the price of government insurance would be set by politicians without regard to actual costs involved. with the govt insurance operating at a loss, it would easily out compete the for profit insurance companies.

And operating at a loss means the revenue has to come from elsewhere... Taxes.

And operating at a loss means the revenue has to come from elsewhere... Taxes.

Or inflationary spending, neither of which are ever morally justifiable.

it would happen because the price of government insurance would be set by politicians without regard to actual costs involved. with the govt insurance operating at a loss, it would easily out compete the for profit insurance companies.

The various private health and insurance companies in Britain manage fine even if they don't have a huge share of the market.. Although a good portion of them would probably go under and I know you 'merkins don't like taxes..

The real dogma of the right is "Competition is good...except when that competition hurts me or my rich friends."

They just leave out the second part to appear more consistant.

1) how can introducing a government option in the free market, be cheaper than the current free market alternatives?

Because a government option would be funded by taxes, and wouldn't have creating a profit as its ultimate goal, a government option would not be constrained by things such as earning money and could easily underprice all free market alternatives.

2) Isn't the simple fact that the insrance industry is complaining they could be 'drvien out of business', evidence that 'the free market' is failing and prices are artificial, now?

I don't know if this is evidence of the fact that insurance prices are artificial, but yes, insurance prices are completely artificial. It's a scam, plain and simple.

3) If it's cheaper, and it covers everyone... wouldn't it be better to have this system anyway, even if it DID drive 'the insurance industry' out of business?

Not from the standpoint of those in danger of being run out of business by a government plan, which I suspect are the people who are speaking against this the loudest.

Well, it would be better for the people, not better for Insurance Companies, cause it would entail a massive drop in either their prices, or in their customers, or both...


But, screw em, After seeing what those douchebags did to people after Katrina i hope their businesses rot in Hell...

God forbid we let the poor people have health insurance.

The various private health and insurance companies in Britain manage fine even if they don't have a huge share of the market.. Although a good portion of them would probably go under and I know you 'merkins don't like taxes..
the UK has a completely different system than the US.

the UK has a completely different system than the US.

My point is that people still pay for insurance and private healthcare even when there's government sponsored sytems available. Of course they'd probably lose a huge portion of the market.

God forbid we let the poor people have health insurance.

This^. If God had wanted the poor to have health insurance, hed have had them born with a proof of insurance card in their mouth.

Because a government option would be funded by taxes, and wouldn't have creating a profit as its ultimate goal, a government option would not be constrained by things such as earning money and could easily underprice all free market alternatives.


Not to mention that a government alternative would emphasize preventative medicine and healthier lifestyles in order to keep costs down. Insurance companies are not necessarily as interested in preventing nice expensive ambulatory care.

My point is that people still pay for insurance and private healthcare even when there's government sponsored sytems available. Of course they'd probably lose a huge portion of the market.
which would completely change the US health insurance business.

not that that is automatically a bad thing but it is a big consideration for the insurance companies.

it would happen because the price of government insurance would be set by politicians without regard to actual costs involved. with the govt insurance operating at a loss, it would easily out compete the for profit insurance companies.

Doesn't make any sense.

Half of the entire US healthcare budget is government spending anyway. Which means that the 'actual cost' you talk about is already 50% offset by an effective grant.

In other words, 'actual cost' is nonsensical in a discussion about healthcare in the US.

And operating at a loss means the revenue has to come from elsewhere... Taxes.

Actually, it doesn't mean that. It could just mean continuing to operate at a loss... or it could mean the price of the actual service decreasing to meet the new price level.

Or inflationary spending, neither of which are ever morally justifiable.

Morals have nothing to do with it.

If you have nothing worthwhile to say...

Doesn't make any sense.

Half of the entire US healthcare budget is government spending anyway. Which means that the 'actual cost' you talk about is already 50% offset by an effective grant.

In other words, 'actual cost' is nonsensical in a discussion about healthcare in the US.
doesnt matter. it would still almost certainly underprice the private carriers.

what we have to avoid is what happens in the state insurance pools--making the restrictions on who can have govt insurance so strict that its composed of people who cant pay the full amount and those with pre-existing conditions, leaving the insurance companies to make profits off the young, well off and healthy.

Because a government option would be funded by taxes, and wouldn't have creating a profit as its ultimate goal, a government option would not be constrained by things such as earning money and could easily underprice all free market alternatives.


The government option isn't described as being 'funded by taxes' - it's described as being insurance, like other insurance, except run by the government.

It looks like it's being presented as a level playing-field with private health insurance... just cheaper.

doesnt matter. it would still almost certainly underprice the private carriers.

what we have to avoid is what happens in the state insurance pools--making the restrictions on who can have govt insurance so strict that its composed of people who cant pay the full amount and those with pre-existing conditions, leaving the insurance companies to make profits off the young, well off and healthy.

It might underprice the private carriers - but if it does, it shows that private carriers are not necessarily the best way to administer this particular service... doesn't it? So why protect the private carriers at the cost of the consumer?

Not to mention that a government alternative would emphasize preventative medicine and healthier lifestyles in order to keep costs down. Insurance companies are not necessarily as interested in preventing nice expensive ambulatory care.

And heaven forbid we should have pro-active healthcare.

It might underprice the private carriers - but if it does, it shows that private carriers are not necessarily the best way to administer this particular service... doesn't it? So why protect the private carriers at the cost of the consumer?
i didnt say we should. i answered the question you asked (or the question i thought you asked at least)

the insurance companies are extremely powerful. if we are going to get a good deal out of this we need a clear understanding of what is best for the american people. the insurance companies will come out with guns blazing to stop us from falling into socialism. *gasp* their ad campaigns and purchased pundits will be very hard to overcome.

1) how can introducing a government option in the free market, be cheaper than the current free market alternatives?


Because they do not require a profit margin.

Either go all private or all public, no more of this halfsies system we have in the US. Massively inefficient and massively expensive.

The thing is, many claim that much of the advancements (or was it just the large accumulations of supply of medicines, I can't remember) in medicine today come from the competitive health care sector in the US, which is great for Europe, since they can simply freeride of this. Obviously this is a little simplistic, I'll see if I can find a proper source for it.

i didnt say we should. i answered the question you asked (or the question i thought you asked at least)


No, it was kind of a follow-on question, since the article also mentioned the fact that this suggestion was being considered a potential dealbreaker.


the insurance companies are extremely powerful. if we are going to get a good deal out of this we need a clear understanding of what is best for the american people. the insurance companies will come out with guns blazing to stop us from falling into socialism. *gasp* their ad campaigns and purchased pundits will be very hard to overcome.

There's no reason the US can't have public healthcare insurance and private healthcare insurance. Other countries manage it. WHat's important is finding the balance.

Blocking this legislation isn't about getting a good deal or getting a clear understanding. If this IS a dealbreaker, it's because of ideology and sympathy for the insurance industry, not concern for the consumer.

*snip*

just get a NHS and be done with it, but keep your private sector as well. works fine over here.

Because they do not require a profit margin.

Neither does anyone else. They just want one.

Plus - of course - this comment is recognition that for every dollar you spend on healthcare, you are willing to contribute roughly a quarter to the bank-account of someone uninvolved in the service or goods.

No, it was kind of a follow-on question, since the article also mentioned the fact that this suggestion was being considered a potential dealbreaker.



There's no reason the US can't have public healthcare insurance and private healthcare insurance. Other countries manage it. WHat's important is finding the balance.

Blocking this legislation isn't about getting a good deal or getting a clear understanding. If this IS a dealbreaker, it's because of ideology and sympathy for the insurance industry, not concern for the consumer.
exactly

but the power of the insurance companies is such that they are far more likely to get unfairly high levels of consideration than the public is.

i dont know what the best solution is for us in the health care sector. all i know is that it has to be fixed.

Plus - of course - this comment is recognition that for every dollar you spend on healthcare, you are willing to contribute roughly a quarter to the bank-account of someone uninvolved in the service or goods.

I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I was just telling you why a government option would be cheaper. Also, I don't think it's quite a quarter.

just get a NHS and be done with it, but keep your private sector as well. works fine over here.

That would be my preference, actually. I consider the lack of healthcare in the US to be unforgivable in a first world country.

But, this is what is being tabled - government insurance. It's not my pet project, so I feel fairly objective looking at it - and looking at the responses it has engendered.

I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I was just telling you why a government option would be cheaper. Also, I don't think it's quite a quarter.

The article says that it's expected it could undercut private health insurance by 'more than 20%'. If the difference is shareholder value, and it's 'more than 20%'... a quarter isn't an unreasonable estimate.

but the power of the insurance companies is such that they are far more likely to get unfairly high levels of consideration than the public is.



I dont see why though, the majority of people, especially down here, have nothing but antipathy for the Insurance Companies...

Seems to me that assured votes from the majority of the populace, and a talking point of taking on the insurance conglomerates would be worth loads more than the campaign money the industry could give in the long run...

I'm confused - every time the subject of nationalised institutions comes up, it is clearly argued that government-run industry simply cannot compete with the free market and private enterprise.

The concern is that a mandatory taxation policy for healthcare will result in a drastically increased cost for private insurance, and crowd it out.

It can be represented in a simple equation.

p(rice of health insurance)=x in a purely private system.
τ+p=x in a In a system with public and private health insurance providers

As for the concerns about public healthcare, the prominent one is that politicians, out of popular demand to keep a lid on the costs of healthcare, will create a situation in which the healthcare system underprovides.

Morals have nothing to do with it.


If you view unlimited accumulation of property as a natural law, morals have something to do with it.

The concern is that a mandatory taxation policy for healthcare will result in a drastically increased cost for private insurance, and crowd it out.

It can be represented in a simple equation.

p(rice of health insurance)=x in a purely private system.
τ+p=x in a In a system with public and private health insurance providers
[QUOTE]

'The concern' is hokum - not just because these systems already exist elsewhere, or because all that happens is that the two tiers simply start catering to different markets (which - one would have thought, is a realisation of the free market, rather than it's undoing) - but because price is not the only factor.

If you talk to most people about what is wrong with the UK's NHS - they'll tell you waiting lists.

If you talk to most people about why they would chose, or have chosen, a form of private insurance in the UK - they'll tell you it's about choice - of venue, of procedure.... of immediacy.

Price is not the 'determining' factor, per se, either way - and both markets survive - because they cater to different wants. Like a free market is supposed to.


As for the concerns about public healthcare, the prominent one is that politicians, out of popular demand to keep a lid on the costs of healthcare, will create a situation in which the healthcare system underprovides.

As opposed to a situation in which it provides, but a large proportion of the population can't afford it, and the government ends up paying for 50% but without the accountability?

If you view unlimited accumulation of property as a natural law, morals have something to do with it.

What is the 'it'?

'The concern' is hokum - not just because these systems already exist elsewhere, or because all that happens is that the two tiers simply start catering to different markets (which - one would have thought, is a realisation of the free market, rather than it's undoing) - but because price is not the only factor. If you talk to most people about what is wrong with the UK's NHS - they'll tell you waiting lists.

If you talk to most people about why they would chose, or have chosen, a form of private insurance in the UK - they'll tell you it's about choice - of venue, of procedure.... of immediacy.

I'm not disagreeing with you though, merely bringing up the classical public finance concern that public spending will crowd out private spending, especially in the case that such an industry will be so directly affected. That's all.

Price is not the 'determining' factor, per se, either way - and both markets survive - because they cater to different wants. Like a free market is supposed to.

Price is a vitally important factor in the equation, regardless, and to people within the margin, it is a big deal.


As opposed to a situation in which it provides, but a large proportion of the population can't afford it, and the government ends up paying for 50% but without the accountability?

Might I reiterate, I feel that fundamental reform is needed, and I feel that going either to a fully public system or a fully private system would be far more desirable than the current system.

1) how can introducing a government option in the free market, be cheaper than the current free market alternatives?

Becuase a government option would be exempt from Taxes, and would be insured agaist loss due to poor management.
2) Isn't the simple fact that the insrance industry is complaining they could be 'drvien out of business', evidence that 'the free market' is failing and prices are artificial, now?

lets each open up a business.. Mine is Tax exempt and the government provides me free insurance against loss. who do you think can produce a cheaper product and hence take most of the market share?

3) If it's cheaper, and it covers everyone... wouldn't it be better to have this system anyway, even if it DID drive 'the insurance industry' out of business?

the reason the private insurance industry is more expensive to beginning with is the government. Taxes is particularly devastating in this regard for you see whats called "profits" during a good year with few sick people is put into banks/CDs/bonds and used to pay for services on a bad year. well the government taxes this money at 25-35%, and taxes the interest on this money is also taxed at 25-35%.

You want government health insurance to be available to compete with private insurance companies ? fine just give said insurance companies the same tax rate as government insurance and the same protection against loss.

What is the 'it'?

The land where you can grow pizza plants.

It's not the CEOs of the insurance companies I'm worried about, it's about all the average Joes that work for those companies. This sure isn't going to help them.

What is the 'it'?

Taxes.

Taxes.

Taxes and inflationary spending DO have moral relevence because... it is taxes?

Seriously - did you read the post you replied to, or the ones I was replying to?

Taxes and inflationary spending DO have moral relevence because... it is taxes?

I misunderstood your question. They would have moral implications because the unlimited accumulation of property can be viewed as a natural law.

Many economic conservatives take this approach straight from Locke.

Becuase a government option would be exempt from Taxes,


Based on what?


...and would be insured agaist loss due to poor management.
lets each open up a business.. Mine is Tax exempt and the government provides me free insurance against loss. who do you think can produce a cheaper product and hence take most of the market share?


What product are you talking about. This is a service, we're talking about.

According to the 'free market wisdom' I'll win, by a long way, because I'll be better organised, less corrupt, and more competetive.


the reason the private insurance industry is more expensive to beginning with is the government.


That's not even English.


You want government health insurance to be available to compete with private insurance companies ?


Not really.

I want the entire 'insurance' mechanism burned to the ground.


fine just give said insurance companies the same tax rate as government insurance and the same protection against loss.

You haven't shown that either of those things are even valid in this situation.

I misunderstood your question. They would have moral implications because the unlimited accumulation of property can be viewed as a natural law.

Many economic conservatives take this approach straight from Locke.

I'm still not sure how this connects to the OP - especially since taxation hasn't been mentioned in the context, inflationary spending hasn't been mentioned in the context, and the article suggests that - for all intents and purposes - this agency would run like any other insurance company... just cheaper.

The fact that Bluth spouted his usual heavy-handed inane crap doesn't surprise me. It's how it's specifically relevant that I'm trying to discern.

I think the relevance was that if the government runs this company under market price then they would be running it at a loss, which would necessitate collecting money to continue running it from somewhere - ie taxes.

I was just responding to how taxes could be viewed as immoral though.

Based on what?

the entire history of government spending. When has the government taxed itself ?



What product are you talking about. This is a service, we're talking about.

good, services same deal all take time effort and money to provide to a consumer.

According to the 'free market wisdom' I'll win, by a long way, because I'll be better organised, less corrupt, and more competetive.

and you would until... you pay taxes and the tax money is used to fund your competitor.
The private corporations is providing revenue to the government, where as the government institution is leeching off that revenue.



Not really.

I want the entire 'insurance' mechanism burned to the ground.

That's nice to be so kind as to do that in your own country.

The concern is that a mandatory taxation policy for healthcare will result in a drastically increased cost for private insurance, and crowd it out.
for some things over here, such as Royal Mail, we have regulators that force the nationalised company to charge market rates, rather than undercut the market. pretty easy way to assure price parity. in RM's case, it forces them to overcharge...

though, of course, how that squares with providing cheaper government insurance for people unable or unwilling to afford private insurance, i don't know.

here, the NHS assures a free (at the point of consumption) level of healthcare, but going private gives you a higher quality, nicer, more personal, and faster experience. my point is that rather than differentiating public vs private via price, perhaps quality of service would be a good alternative.


That would be my preference, actually. I consider the lack of healthcare in the US to be unforgivable in a first world country.


indeed.

I dont see why though, the majority of people, especially down here, have nothing but antipathy for the Insurance Companies...

Seems to me that assured votes from the majority of the populace, and a talking point of taking on the insurance conglomerates would be worth loads more than the campaign money the industry could give in the long run...
they dont just have congressmen in their pockets but also a big slew of pundits.

were you too young when the clintons tried to get something passed?

they dont just have congressmen in their pockets but also a big slew of pundits.

were you too young when the clintons tried to get something passed?

yes actually, lol, im only 20...But, Id imagine those critics could be easily dispelled as Right-Wing pigs, especially with the amount of support behind the measure...

yes actually, lol, im only 20...But, Id imagine those critics could be easily dispelled as Right-Wing pigs, especially with the amount of support behind the measure...
its so much more subtle than that and it takes advantage of the "impartiality" of the news.

they put out alarmist ads scaring the public that they were not going to get the kind of health care they are used to. they had misleading pundits and congressmen talking about how horrific and socialist it would be. the news outlets gave such people undue credence--reporting as if they meant what they said instead of being paid shills for the insurance companies.

its very hard to fight. they have to come up with an excellent plan that business will fight for. after all it is very much to business' favor to have reasonably priced insurance that they may not even have to pay for.

its so much more subtle than that and it takes advantage of the "impartiality" of the news.

they put out alarmist ads scaring the public that they were not going to get the kind of health care they are used to. they had misleading pundits and congressmen talking about how horrific and socialist it would be. the news outlets gave such people undue credence--reporting as if they meant what they said instead of being paid shills for the insurance companies.

its very hard to fight. they have to come up with an excellent plan that business will fight for. after all it is very much to business' favor to have reasonably priced insurance that they may not even have to pay for.


Idk though, I watch alot of MSNBC and CNN, Im willing to bet theyd be on board for anything really, and Fox and Talk radio are easily put down because of the massive discrediting theyve had over the years...

And thats really all you need as far as pundits are concerned...the 2006 and 2008 elections should be examples of that, lol...

Idk if there IS a plan that the Insurance companies would want, I mean, these are people who hire employees whose specific job it is to find ways to deny people their claims, I dont think they would accept a plan that takes money or customers from them...which is what any National Healthcare System would do...

Idk though, I watch alot of MSNBC and CNN, Im willing to bet theyd be on board for anything really, and Fox and Talk radio are easily put down because of the massive discrediting theyve had over the years...

And thats really all you need as far as pundits are concerned...the 2006 and 2008 should be examples of that, lol...

Idk if there IS a plan that the Insurance companies would want, I mean, these are people who hire employees whose specific job it is to find ways to deny people their claims, I dont think they would accept a plan that takes money or customers from them...which is what any National Healthcare System would do...
that obama guy is pretty smart.

im very much hoping that he will come up with an excellent plan that we can all support.

we cant go on the way we are where we treat health care as a right but pay for it as a privilege. where even if you have good insurance one serious illness can drive you into bankruptcy. where people wait until they cannot stand the pain before they go to the emergency room to get treatment that they will never be able to pay for.

that obama guy is pretty smart.

im very much hoping that he will come up with an excellent plan that we can all support.

we cant go on the way we are where we treat health care as a right but pay for it as a privilege. where even if you have good insurance one serious illness can drive you into bankruptcy. where people wait until they cannot stand the pain before they go to the emergency room to get treatment that they will never be able to pay for.

Yes, but there must be a way that provides for private insurance companies yet makes it possible for affordable healthcare. Universal healthcare will bring with it new problems.

2) Isn't the simple fact that the insrance industry is complaining they could be 'drvien out of business', evidence that 'the free market' is failing and prices are artificial, now?
Absolutely!!

3) If it's cheaper, and it covers everyone... wouldn't it be better to have this system anyway, even if it DID drive 'the insurance industry' out of business?
Absolutely!!

Yes, but there must be a way that provides for private insurance companies yet makes it possible for affordable healthcare. Universal healthcare will bring with it new problems.
yes it will for sure.

but we cant discuss what those problems will be before we know what the plan actually turns out to be.

As I read a magazine not only published in New York City but one that refers to it by name, I am smarter than the rest of you and thus link this (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande).
As for the OP, I agree. The fact government intervention has, since the beginning of capitalism, been necessary to support the free market (which I think overall is a good thing) shows that the market can't solve everything on its own. As the article I linked points out, the US is actually fortunate in that we have many different health models to choose from, including some that are downright socialist (for our veterans, no less. Oh, the shame!) and the federal government setting up its own policy wouldn't have to be less efficient than what we already have.

That's nice to be so kind as to do that in your own country.

I'm talking about 'my own country'.

Or inflationary spending, neither of which are ever morally justifiable.
Taxes aren't morally justifiable mah fuckin bawws.

I'm talking about 'my own country'.

Is that "Real"-America or "Fake"-America? ;)

as long as people unable to afford it arenyt forced to pay it, iym good. but actually that would be the same thing as it is now. If you are poor you have options , you arn't turned out on to the street. No matter what you go into the hospital for , you get taken care of.. it just bounces as to who will pay.

Health care and drugs.. is nothing but money making. Especially medicine (drugs). They pimp their shit .. go around to diff institutions pimping.

I cannot believe marajuana isn't legal .. actually yes I can ..

you know why pot ain't legal? It grows on the vine ..doesn't take any cultivation .. The gov can't control it's sell ... ie there is no cultivation to control.

a 'tax' wont cover it to them. if they ever did land a tax.. it would be half the cost of an ounce alone. .. so they will still have to keep laws on it, to make money.

crooked bastards

Is that "Real"-America or "Fake"-America? ;)

I think I'm in the real one, since this is one of Nailin' Palin's fave stops...