[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]
And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.
The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).
