You may well be right. In our current system there is no incentive for insurers to cut the cost of medical care overall. The more medical care costs, the more people need insurance and the more they are willing to pay for it. It is better for the insurance company to rake 5% off of a 2 trillion dollar business than a 1 trillion dollar one.
Now of course that would only work if insurance companies were exempt from anti-trust. That is just crazy talk of course.
I was raised Republican, so I think I can translate.
“If we allow the poor free access to healthcare, then they will abuse it. Poor people will be constantly coming into hospitals to get chemotherapy and lung transplants that they don’t need only because it doesn’t cost them anything. Even if they are perfectly healthy, they’ll get their tonsils taken out just for the free ice cream. Guys will be coming in to get a vasectomy, and then again to get it reversed, and then to get a vasectomy again, instead of buying a pack of condoms, because the vasectomy is free. It’s a situation fraught with potential for abuse.”
Romney probably isn’t racist, but many of the people he panders to are. And any red meat about welfare going to illegal immigrants or poor black people will have them rioting.
It’s a pretty simple concept. If companies are paying $8 to $10,000 per employee for HMO’s and that money is converted directly to wages then people would migrate to insurance policies (versus HMO’s) and bank the difference over time using HSA’s as a deduction buffer. All this could be done like Massachusetts keeping insurance companies intact as well as the government’s role of regulator and not administrator.
Its the truth. The southern strategy was designed to build resentment against blacks. Now the contemporary GOP uses resentment against illegal aliens to rile up their base.
I don’t see what is so controversial about that. We liberals have our flaws (our policies can and do have negative blowback as an example), but to imply that racial divisions aren’t a part of the GOP strategy is not even remotely true. If it weren’t, then the GOP wouldn’t be made up almost solely of white people.
A big crux of the GOP movement is encouraging resentment among white people against illegal immigrants, blacks and the poor (or a combination).
Its not to say all people in the GOP are like that (many are libertarians for example). But it is a big part of the contemporary GOP.
One minor problem. A big company has negotiating power with the insurance companies, and people buying policies one at a time don’t. Big companies are also often self-insured, with the insurance company only administering the plan, so the insurance company has no reason to spend money to deny coverage, which they do for individual policies. Company insurance has no restriction on pre-existing conditions, we know about private policies and this. Maybe if we made it illegal to discriminate based on this private would be the way to go, but as it stands anyone with an issue no longer has choice of provider, and can get screwed by big increases. Which happens when those with a choice leave, and those more expensive to insure remain.
I don’t know if you are being absurd or what. Do you believe racial bigotry plays no role in the contemporary GOP? That resentment, fear and anger against latinos and blacks (usually under the guise of problems with immigration, jobs, welfare and crime which are blamed on latinos and blacks) isn’t a factor in their beliefs?
I’m not saying it is the only facet of conservatism. But it is a big part of factions on the right. To not notice it implies you really don’t want to see it.
Valid concerns but is it a problem with Massachusetts? We have different states with different systems and it would make sense to monitor the successes and failures.