PLAYER57832 wrote:And we go back to square one. The private insurers are going to be able to issue policies that meet some stricter guidelines than those currently in place (i.e. very little).
You say this is not really going to be an option because the government can offer better policies cheaper and therefore will outcompete the private policies. Competition is what you support. Why is it wrong if the government happens to be the winner?
Its not my job to ensure that insurance companies stay in business. Its my job to get the best care I can for my kids. What is wrong with the government doing it, if they do it better?
Yeesh... It's almost as if you don't really read what I type... Maybe a numbered list will help...
(1) In the current healthcare bill, people who have private health insurance on Day 1 are permitted to keep said private insurance. However, if a person loses his or her job, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, he or she loses any option to purchase private health insurance. As such, there really is no option. With that in mind, let's focus on #2 (and then #3).
(2) Government health insurance is "cheaper" in the same sense as it is "free." In other words, you're assuming that we are going to pay less for the same quality healthcare. That is absolutely false. We're either going to pay the same for the same healthcare or we're going to pay less for less quality. Now, you may ask, "But, thegreekdog, why isn't it free?" I will reply that you and everyone else will pay for their healthcare in taxes.
(3) Once the government has "control" of health insurance because people lose their jobs and because government health insurance becomes better because it's "free," the government will have free reign to run the healthcare system into the ground in the same fashion as it has done to education, postal services, and social security. Our government's track record on these types of things is not good.
