I'm genuinely interested in the debate on Health Care Reform, but I will be the first to admit I have neither the political chops or core knowledge of the bill to really back up that interest with a solid argument. So instead, I'll try some questions.
1) I've read somewhere that there are some states, Alabama I believe was one, where there is basically a single dominant health insurance provider. As your post suggests, when few players rule, the market doesn't function properly. How is this scenario any different than what you proposed will happen under the HCR bill? If it does indeed exist already in the private sector, how do we go about putting end to these monopolies (I know that's the wrong word here, but it's the best I could come up with), without government regulation?
2) My brother works at a very small game studio based out of Florida. The company has maybe 20 people, at best, and because of this it has been impossible for the company to procure any decent rates on insurance for their employees because they do not have the leverage that a larger company would have. Why should he have to pay amounts in excess of several hundred percent more for insurance than he would have to pay at a larger company, for the same coverage? How can that be fixed without regulation?
3) You mention that without the high costs of private health care, there will not be enough funding to assist with advances in medicine. You suggest that cures and treatments will come at a slower pace as more people switch to the public option or as more and more private insurers fold up shop because they can't compete at the new, lower costs of health insurance. And yet, on the opposite hand, I continually run into, what I consider to be intelligent conversations, that would suggest that advances in medicine are actually held back by these large organizations. That it is more lucrative to treat diseases than it is to cure them. Is your stance that these discussions are merely brought on by conspiracy theorists and have little to no merit, or do you believe that there is some validity to them?
I realize the position I hold is probably apparent, but I really am interested in hearing your (or anyone else's) opinions on these items.
> ... without the high costs of private health care, there will not be enough funding to assist with advances in medicine.
I think that is the token defense phrase used by the big pharma companies. In fact they spend more on marketing and advertising than on research. A lot of research is actually done by the public universities.
The three counter-arguments that make the most sense to me:
1) One proposal was to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would allow smaller contenders to make their offerings on a larger scale, and sidestep the Alabama issue you mention.
2) The point here, I think, is that your brother shouldn't "have" to pay for insurance at all. Allowing individuals to receive the same tax breaks on insurance as businesses do would allow people to choose their own plans, open up the market more, and allow more consumer choice.
3) This is the first I've heard of this one. I find it hard to imagine not wanting to cure a disease... even in the nastiest, greed-driven environment, I think the byline "We cured colon cancer!" is worth more money any amount of incremental profit from treatments. So yeah, going to go with the conspiracy kook option on this one. :)
To clarify, my position is far from the Republican party line on the issue. I agree with most of the new regulations in the bill that I'm aware of, but I would vastly prefer a bill without a public option.
1) The scenario you described isn't as damaging because it's just a single state. If doctors are underpaid by the dominant insurer in Alabama, they can move elsewhere. Even if they don't, losing money from just Alabama isn't going to set progress that much. Losing money from the whole nation will.
2) They shouldn't, and regulation is necessary to fix that.
3) I don't think insurers and pharmaceutical companies hold back cures for diseases, but they definitely do push forward treatments that will lead to long-term revenue. This is why non-profit research funding is an important part of the system.
You talk about moving between states like it's changing a pair of pants. That's a pretty big deal for most people. A monopoly in an area the size of Alabama is like a monopoly in an area the size of Bosnia.
It's more than just moving. Fewer doctors will choose to practice in the state. I'm not saying that things are fine since they can just move; I'm saying that thing's aren't fine so some of them will move.
I will reply to you and Calamitous both here, since you both had some solid points and follow ups. I should also clarify as well with my 2nd question.
It's not that he's being -forced- to pay for health insuranceh. It's that the insurance provided to him through his work is outrageously expensive for him and his family, even with the company assistance. He's said that going outside of his company and acquiring insurance on his own is even more costly. So I agree with Calamitous on this in that it would be great if individuals and small business received the same tax breaks as large companies do, well that would be a great thing. This, in some form, is in the bill, correct?
As for the first question, I agree that comparing a single state's situation with a single dominant provider is very different from something on a nation wide scale. Although the issue with doctors being underpaid wasn't exactly what I driving at. I was more concerned with the provider charging exorbitant rates and the residents not have much of a choice but to pay them. As Calamitous suggested, allowing insurance companies to compete across states lines seems like a good way to level out the playing field. I'm curious if this, too, is in the bill?
As for the last item, I agree that the thought that any company would actively suppress cures for diseases is hard to imagine. However, I still haven't written the possibility off completely. If you do agree that they at least promote treatments that offer better long term revenue streams over quicker and cheaper methods, then my unfortunate state of pessimism doesn't see the withholding of cures as much more of a step. Your comments about non-profit research do offer a good argument and I would agree with you there as well. I'm curious to know if any of the premiums that will be collected via the public option will go towards these research funds or if all of that will be wrapped up in actually paying for the plan itself.
1) I've read somewhere that there are some states, Alabama I believe was one, where there is basically a single dominant health insurance provider. As your post suggests, when few players rule, the market doesn't function properly. How is this scenario any different than what you proposed will happen under the HCR bill? If it does indeed exist already in the private sector, how do we go about putting end to these monopolies (I know that's the wrong word here, but it's the best I could come up with), without government regulation?
2) My brother works at a very small game studio based out of Florida. The company has maybe 20 people, at best, and because of this it has been impossible for the company to procure any decent rates on insurance for their employees because they do not have the leverage that a larger company would have. Why should he have to pay amounts in excess of several hundred percent more for insurance than he would have to pay at a larger company, for the same coverage? How can that be fixed without regulation?
3) You mention that without the high costs of private health care, there will not be enough funding to assist with advances in medicine. You suggest that cures and treatments will come at a slower pace as more people switch to the public option or as more and more private insurers fold up shop because they can't compete at the new, lower costs of health insurance. And yet, on the opposite hand, I continually run into, what I consider to be intelligent conversations, that would suggest that advances in medicine are actually held back by these large organizations. That it is more lucrative to treat diseases than it is to cure them. Is your stance that these discussions are merely brought on by conspiracy theorists and have little to no merit, or do you believe that there is some validity to them?
I realize the position I hold is probably apparent, but I really am interested in hearing your (or anyone else's) opinions on these items.