T
The Confirmed Atheist
Guest
... and simply create a public option that anyone that wants to can join?
Before I continue, let me state that this is insurance we're talking about, not health care itself. If people are worried about "free-market capitalism" then I say that's fine as well, as the free market would be free to run as it would, (only it would have one more competitor).
I think a great many people are under the assumption that companies like Blue Cross and United Healthcare would stand to lose customers, but that simply isn't the case. The only thing that would change is the group rates, as anyone who works for the government can tell you that Blue Cross, AETNA, Kaiser, United Healthcare, etc., are all carriers available under government health insurance plans. They simply make less money from government workers because of the discounts given for group rates.
So, free marketers, would you be more inclined to support a public option if all it did was allow people to join a bigger group (such as the government) for a lower premium? No "reform", just the option to get the same coverage at a lower rate?
mr pinhead, I don't recall ever mentioning giving free healthcare to anyone at all... did you even read my question?
So, kpk, I assume you think it's okay for you and your employer to pay a private insurer 12k plus per year for Healthcare insurance when you may only have 3K per year in Healthcare costs, netting the private insurance group 9k in profits? Yet somehow it's unnacceptable for that 9k profit to go towards subsidizing insurance for people who work at McDonalds and can't afford to pay 6k, or even 3k per year for healthcare? It doesn't have to be free for them, but damn, that's a lot of money to throw away, compared to what the government would tax you.
Before I continue, let me state that this is insurance we're talking about, not health care itself. If people are worried about "free-market capitalism" then I say that's fine as well, as the free market would be free to run as it would, (only it would have one more competitor).
I think a great many people are under the assumption that companies like Blue Cross and United Healthcare would stand to lose customers, but that simply isn't the case. The only thing that would change is the group rates, as anyone who works for the government can tell you that Blue Cross, AETNA, Kaiser, United Healthcare, etc., are all carriers available under government health insurance plans. They simply make less money from government workers because of the discounts given for group rates.
So, free marketers, would you be more inclined to support a public option if all it did was allow people to join a bigger group (such as the government) for a lower premium? No "reform", just the option to get the same coverage at a lower rate?
mr pinhead, I don't recall ever mentioning giving free healthcare to anyone at all... did you even read my question?
So, kpk, I assume you think it's okay for you and your employer to pay a private insurer 12k plus per year for Healthcare insurance when you may only have 3K per year in Healthcare costs, netting the private insurance group 9k in profits? Yet somehow it's unnacceptable for that 9k profit to go towards subsidizing insurance for people who work at McDonalds and can't afford to pay 6k, or even 3k per year for healthcare? It doesn't have to be free for them, but damn, that's a lot of money to throw away, compared to what the government would tax you.