Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The goal here is to have the pseudo-corporation become a monopoly, or at least become big enough that its competitors have no choice but to match it in quality and coverage as well as price to stay competitive. I'm not sure if the public option is made with that aim in mind.
A side effect would be that excess profit (that isn't spent on buying out competitors or maintenance on the company) could be put in the state's budget as opposed to a bigwig's mattress in the meantime.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Oct 20th 2018 at 1:15:06 AM
The government DOES have an obligation to support its citizens. It also can do a better job because if you force the cost on insurance companies, you are just privatizing health care indirectly.
Firstly the minority metaphor is greatly offensive, please don't compare me to racists who want to steal from well-off minorities. Not to mention comparing insurance companies to well-off minorities is itself ridiculous and offensive.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting that they should fund the public's healthcare. I'm saying that their actions to block single payer or other forms of healthcare reform are immoral and worthy of condemnation.
This is assuming that "create a government-run one" would involve competing with them. I would prefer nationalizing the industry under the state.
Furthermore, even if competition were permitted it would be a mistake to assume that being predators in a competitive food chain somehow outweighs the kind of resources that the government can bring to bear (hint: it can't).
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWell given my father worked his way from poverty via insurance, I have nothing good to say about your attempts to vilify his industry because you don't think the government should pay for healthcare.
Insurance cannot be a substitute for state-run healthcare.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 20th 2018 at 1:34:36 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Insurance companies are by far the largest hurdle that needs to be cleared to establish universal healthcare in the US. Due to the way those companies are set up, to compete in the market they kind of have to screw people. It’s in their best interest to not insure those who are actually most at risk.
Nationalizing the insurance industry, or bringing it wholly under government control is probably the best bet.
They should have sent a poet.The first step to eliminating the insurance companies' stranglehold on medicine is not to deal with the insurance companies. It's to regulate the outrageous costs of healthcare.
First, we issue regulations to bring the cost of healthcare down to reasonable levels. Literally the only reason why getting a check-up costs $10,000 is because of the deals brokered between insurance companies and hospitals.
If we smack down those costs, we can then create a non-profit public option health insurance plan that charges substantially less than the competition for the same level of care. This forces the insurance companies to adapt or die. They can either bring down their prices or we'll compete them out of business.
The insurance companies aren't the problem. They're vultures, picking at the corpses left behind by the problem. The problem is outrageous healthcare costs that make it next to impossible to afford care unless you pay for an expensive insurance plan.
P.S. Vote Democrat if you ever want to see something like this happen.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 20th 2018 at 5:47:20 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.To be fair, part of the reason healthcare prices are so high is because health insurance companies regularly try to avoid paying costs to hospitals or at least lower them to lowest price possible through negotiation. Thus, hospitals began to charge outrageous prices for even the most inexpensive of treatments because the higher they set the prices the more likely they're going to get a decent pay out from insurance companies after negotiation.
One of the reasons those prices so high is that Valeant (which owns a shit ton of medicine as a whole) jacks up prices on customers they know have insurance. Going from 2 dollars a pill to 200 dollars a pill so that they can't force insurance companies to pay the entire amount without the customers being aware of just how much they're paying.
Often critical lifesaving drugs they can't live without.
The companies are then forced to shift the cost around to customers who aren't threatened by it. Hospitals do the same, charging obscene amounts of money and forcing insurance companies to bargain or drop customers.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

How about introducing government-operated insurance agencies? Pseudo-corporate entities that can get the capital needed to buy out most competitors?