The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2009, 09:10 AM   #1
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
The system we have isn't perfect. We all agree on that. But to me, to dismantle it and replace it with a system that is a complete unknown without a VERY SPECIFIC design (which we are not getting now) It will more than likely be worse and cost more, much much more - especially in a recession.
This is very unwise and is a dangerous proposal. Why are we rushing into this? I think we should take care and study the alternatives very carefully. I agree to we should do something, but increasing the number of insured by as much as 25% and reducing the overall task is and extremely daunting task, if not impossible.
We all know far too well how inefficient our government is. To mandate coverage to private industry makes no sense. The government has never run a profitable enterprise - EVER. Therefore it is crystal clear how this ambitious new plan will be payed for - tax increases. To even consider it ignores that reality.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2009, 10:09 AM   #2
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
To mandate coverage to private industry makes no sense.
That's how car insurance works.
Quote:
The government has never run a profitable enterprise - EVER. Therefore it is crystal clear how this ambitious new plan will be payed for - tax increases. To even consider it ignores that reality.
If the government ran something at a profit, it should either spin it off to private industry or decrease its budget. One of the reasons for a government to run something is if the profit motive is insufficient (e.g. pure science) or corrupting (e.g. the military).

If there were a way to set up private health insurance in such a way that the profit motive incentivized low premiums and paying claims, maybe that could work. Unfortunately, it's the other way round. Is there even a theoretical way for health insurance companies to be run at a profit without incentivizing the denial of claims?

All I can think of are from the other direction, placing more restrictions on the various reasons insurance companies give for denials, such as "preexisting conditions" or "experimental". But as long as the incentive is still for denial, they'd just make up new classifications.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.