Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that - page 3.

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

Quote from: Spendulus on July 09, 2019, 07:42:49 PM

Quote from: coins4commies on July 09, 2019, 07:36:26 PM

....
If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. ....

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

Its not odd. Its what always happens when they have to compete with private companies.

Quote

but even thinking about the government coming into an industry (with such a large amount of people employed) and telling them that they're no longer needed is appalling. Just think, an entire sector is gone (one that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans) just like that.

This is why access to free education/housing and or UBI is important. It gives people a strong safety net until they can find a real job.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: coins4commies on July 09, 2019, 07:36:26 PM

....
If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. ....

Odd, a lot of public health care systems have a goal of providing as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible....

coins4commies

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 175

@cryptocommies

Allowing the people who bear the burden of the costs to opt out of a public system would open the door for them to defund and neglect it because it wouldn't be their health they're neglecting. Think about it, if everyone's health depends on the public system, everyone has a vested interest in making the system work well. There can be no workaround.

If private insurance remained, neglect would be inevitable because the goal of private companies is not to provide the service, but to maximize profits which means provide as little service as possible while collecting as much money as possible. Private insurance companies can profit more by weakening the government system and will have the political power to do just that.

Of course the government cannot compete. We don't even want the government to compete. Thats the whole point. We want them to focus on providing the best service possible instead of tricking people into paying the most possible for the least possible in return (what private companies do)

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: bones261 on July 06, 2019, 09:50:26 AM

The current Medicare system has part C, which allows for a participant to have a private insurance company take over their Medicare benefits, (a Medicare advantage plan.) Furthermore, a participant can opt out of part B. ( A participant should have other insurance if they opt for this.) Furthermore, Medicare claims are usually handled by government contractors. (These are private companies.) However, what many of the Democratic candidates are actually pushing resembles this very little. In fact, it appears what they are offering is closer to VA health benefits for all. This program is totally run by the government and like most government run programs is totally inefficient. I'd be all for a "Medicare for all" program if what they offer is actually closer to what Medicare currently offers. However, I am feeling like many democratic candidates are actually pushing for something that I think would be disaster and labeling it "Medicare for all," since Medicare is a popular program, and they are trying to bamboozle their voters.

This is a focus on the results, not the initiative.

What they want is to take another 10-25% of peoples' income in taxes.

Then there are the promises.

Then there is what is actually delivered.

Just look at the "takings." They want to take your money. Then say "No."

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

The current Medicare system has part C, which allows for a participant to have a private insurance company take over their Medicare benefits, (a Medicare advantage plan.) Furthermore, a participant can opt out of part B. ( A participant should have other insurance if they opt for this.) Furthermore, Medicare claims are usually handled by government contractors. (These are private companies.) However, what many of the Democratic candidates are actually pushing resembles this very little. In fact, it appears what they are offering is closer to VA health benefits for all. This program is totally run by the government and like most government run programs is totally inefficient. I'd be all for a "Medicare for all" program if what they offer is actually closer to what Medicare currently offers. However, I am feeling like many democratic candidates are actually pushing for something that I think would be disaster and labeling it "Medicare for all," since Medicare is a popular program, and they are trying to bamboozle their voters.

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Now that the first Democratic primary has come to a close, we've seen a significant shift in the minds of Democrats relating to a substantial question -- "Should Americans be able to keep their private insurance" and the answer, now, for most Democrats is "Yes."

Bernie is the only person to deviate from this, saying that private health insurance companies should be outlawed. Which I think we all know is never going to happen, but even thinking about the government coming into an industry (with such a large amount of people employed) and telling them that they're no longer needed is appalling. Just think, an entire sector is gone (one that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans) just like that.

If the Government can do a better job with their whole Medicare for all Plan for cheaper, then so be it. More to them, but I don't think the government should outlaw private insurance -- nor should they force them out with regulations, fees, taxes, etc. in a way to make their plan seem better. I'd like to see if the government can compete and if they can then so be it -- if it brings costs down for Americans, then I'm happy.

What does everyone else think?

Topic: Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that - page 3. (Read 519 times)