Insured might pay more under Obama plan

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by toomuchtime_, Sep 11, 2009.

  1. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,534
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,970
    Apparently, our Cheerleader-in-Chief hasn't heard the CBO has stated research shows 80% of preventative care such as screenings costs more than it saves.

    A lot of feel good slogans that would add enormous amounts to insurance company costs that would be passed on to consumers and businesses in the form of higher health insurance premiums, making health insurance more expensive than ever before for nearly all Americans and saddling American businesses with additional costs that would make them less competitive than ever with foreign competitors.

    But while Obama's plan would cause American consumers to grow poorer and most American businesses to become less competitive, it would cause health insurers to grow fatter and richer and provide a profit bonanza for health care providers and suppliers.

    Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,063
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,122
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    Someone at MSNBC is going to get fired for posting that on their website.
     
  4. pal_of_poor
    Offline

    pal_of_poor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    193
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +30
    I think the whole "fine if you don't buy" thing is designed to compensate for any necessity for an increase in prices to cover them not actually covering people, as they have agreed to do, while taking their client's money for decades sometimes.

    Also, if the public option, already a massive compromise from single-payer, gets through, then it serves as a competition to the insurance companies, and forces them to try to keep their prices down.

    Like it or not, huge pay packages to executives, cushy retreats and vacations paid for by shareholders, ads run on the television about things unrelated to normal advertising, in particular political ads, all make private sector insurance very expensive. By the same token, these are areas where insurance companies that are trying to compete, can easily manage to find cheaper alternatives. That is the result of the whole idea behind having a public option.

    As much as the PO is maligned, were we to not have it, it'd likely cost two dollars to mail a letter, and $20 to mail a small package. The PO, keeps the private companies like FedEx or UPS, in line.
     
  5. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,534
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,970
    The lack of competition among private health insurers in some markets, as well as the high cost of health insurance, is the result of government policies, originally well intentioned but now in need or revision. Competition among private insurers could be easily achieved at no cost to taxpayers by revising ERISA so that company plans were only tax exempt if they allowed the employee to choose to either accept company provided health insurance or use the company contribution to buy his/her own insurance from whatever company he/she chose.

    If the employee could find an individual policy for less than his/her contribution and the company's contribution, the employee could keep the difference as regular taxable income. This would drive price competition among private insurers in the individual market and lower the cost of health insurance for everyone. Moreover, as consumers shopped for their individual policies, they would notice that if they chose high deductible catastrophic policies along with health savings accounts, they would be able to keep even more of the company contribution as regular income, and if they went this route, they would become price conscious shoppers for health care providers, and this would put downward pressure on health care costs which would also serve to further drive down health insurance premiums for everyone. As health care costs and health insurance costs fell, some who now can't afford to buy health insurance would be able to afford it, and if the government decided to provide subsidies to help others, it would cost taxpayers far less than it would now. All of this could be achieved at no cost to taxpayers by simply amending ERISA as described above.

    In addition, if an employee owned his/her own individual health insurance policy, he/she would feel free to move from job to job within the coverage area without fear of losing health insurance coverage because of pre existing conditions the employee or a member of his/her family might have been treated for; this would certainly be a great boon to the employee as well as to the regional economy. If the federal government took the additional step of making it possible for health insurers to sell policies nationally (admittedly a complex task), employees would be able to move anywhere in the country without fear of losing their insurance; certainly a considerable benefit to the employee, his/her family and to the national economy. Of course, having 1500 health insurers competing for every health insurance policy sold in America would put even more downward pressure on health insurance premiums, making health insurance even cheaper for everyone and allowing even more people who now can't afford to buy their own health insurance to purchase their own policies, and of course, if the government should decide to provide subsidies to those with pre existing conditions to help them with the higher insurance costs they must contend with or to those who are still too poor to be able to buy their own insurance but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, it will cost taxpayers much less than it would now.

    All of these benefits to employees, to health care/insurance consumers, to the national economy and to taxpayers can be achieved just by removing government obstacles to competition among health insurers.
     

Share This Page