# Would a public option force insurance out of business? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2009, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411 "2009-09-09T12:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/41 "2009-09-09T19:58:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think that you are being deliberately obtuse. Moi? šŸ˜‰ > [@](#): > > You use definition #1 and switch to #2 and back and forth again. This ā€œadaptā€ thing is really giving you fits , isnā€™t it? Oh, well, not my problem. > [@](#): > > [What I am saying is that this plan is being sold as ā€œkeep your private insurance if you likeā€ knowning that people are thinking of #1 while you are hitting them with #2 from the back end. Nope (and if even if you were right, so what?). Do you really think any government action here is going to forcibly eliminate the private option for anybody? Whoā€™s been selling you \*that \*crap? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/42 "2009-09-09T19:58:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And if there is a shortfall, and the program doesnā€™t look like it will survive, will it: > > 1. Raise premiums > 2. Raise taxes > 3. Cut benefits > 4. Borrow money from the treasury to sustain the program. > > And hereā€™s a hint: When a crunch comes, private insurers canā€™t do #2 or #4. Who has the advantage? Except, as the law stands now, the government program wonā€™t be able to do 2 or 4 either. It will be forced to either raise premiums or cut benefits. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/43 "2009-09-09T20:04:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The government. #4. They can do that until society collapses. :rolleyes: If you donā€™t have a serious argument to make, thereā€™s no need to continue. > [@](#): > > Government program wins. Welcome to National Health Care. Itā€™s been said better. From the hit LP _Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine_: > [@](#): > > Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you donā€™t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Norman Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you donā€™t do this and if I donā€™t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrenā€™s children, what it once was like in America when men were free. We got Medicare anyway, and somehow weā€™re still free. Imagine that. > [@](#): > > My point is that what we are being sold is nothing like what is a natural consequence to it happening. Ok, cite for what you think youā€™re being sold? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/44 "2009-09-09T20:22:52Z")
Letā€™s start again. Do you feel that Obama is being truthful, accurate, and not intentionally or accidentally misleading reasonable people when he says that ā€œif you like your health care plan, you keep your health care planā€ under his proposed system? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/45 "2009-09-09T20:36:50Z")
To answer the OP, and leaving aside whether it would be a good outcome or not, I donā€™t see how it would not end the private insurance we have now. During a speech Obama gave a couple of weeks ago, he pointed out that OF COURSE the public option would be cheaper. After all, they wouldnā€™t have to see to marketing or profits, and that amounts to, I think he said about 20% right off the top. So if you have two entities, and one can price their good based on 20% less expenditures, how could that not cause the lower price to be so attractive to employers that they would choose the more expensive privte options. Also, as the numbers begin to shift, the private insurers begin to lose economies of scale and doing business becomes even more expensive for them and less expensive for the public option. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/46 "2009-09-09T22:31:17Z")
If that 20% number is true, his case is made. Why should we pay a 20% margin for what is primarily an actuarial function: you do the math, you set the rates according to the math, who needs a CEO for that? The unanswered question is in practices. The insurance companies make a profit, but behave in a manner that ought to be criminal, as linked above. If they cannot make an acceptable profit without such practices, then do we continue to condone brutal cruelty to our own people? Why in the world would we do that? Why in the world are we _doing_ that? And where is all this legendary efficiency, that so naturally springs from the brow of competition? How much of this overhead money is spent screwing people out of what theyā€™ve contracted for? If the insurance companies can deliver the goods, in a respectable and moral manner, Iā€™m all for it. No problem, free enterprise all the way, Iā€™m on board. But if they can, why havenā€™t they? And if they canā€™t, what good are they? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/47 "2009-09-09T22:49:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If that 20% number is true, his case is made. Why should we pay a 20% margin for what is primarily an actuarial function: you do the math, you set the rates according to the math, who needs a CEO for that? > > The unanswered question is in practices. The insurance companies make a profit, but behave in a manner that ought to be criminal, as linked above. If they cannot make an acceptable profit without such practices, then do we continue to condone brutal cruelty to our own people? Why in the world would we do that? Why in the world are we _doing_ that? > > And where is all this legendary efficiency, that so naturally springs from the brow of competition? How much of this overhead money is spent screwing people out of what theyā€™ve contracted for? > > If the insurance companies can deliver the goods, in a respectable and moral manner, Iā€™m all for it. No problem, free enterprise all the way, Iā€™m on board. But if they can, why havenā€™t they? And if they canā€™t, what good are they? I think what we have is a situation where there is not enough competition. I do like the idea of allowing the companies to compete across state lines. Why not? Plus, if I moved, then I can take my insurance with me. Can you point to these profits you classify as ā€œcriminalā€. And please donā€™t just list some big number without the percent, like some nitwits liked to do in many of the oli-companies-are-evil threads. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/48 "2009-09-09T22:54:52Z")
It is not the profits themselves which are criminal, but the methods used to obtain them. Just as money isnā€™t the root of evil, but the _love_ of money. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/49 "2009-09-09T23:05:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It is not the profits themselves which are criminal, but the methods used to obtain them. Just as money isnā€™t the root of evil, but the _love_ of money. The problem is, in my estimation, is that theyā€™re NOT criminal. We need changes to the rules and regulations to make some of what they do, in fact, criminal. Now, they are simply immoral. I donā€™t know of anyone who is a fan of doing nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/50 "2009-09-10T00:14:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I donā€™t know of anyone who is a fan of doing nothing. So the pundits who say ā€œwe have the best health care system in the worldā€ arenā€™t arguing for status quo, but just arguing against making serious and fundamental change to it? Or at least a specific type of serious and fundamental change? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/51 "2009-09-10T00:17:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > Itā€™s stunning to me to see so many people argue that the rights the government should hold primary are not those of the people, but of the insurance companies. That the perceived proper goal of government, for so many in the health care debates, is not to ā€œpromote the general Welfareā€ but to preserve the bonus-paying capabilities of major campaign donors. That those asserting those arguments want policies that will hurt them and not help them, and perhaps even know it. > > What about both? Thereā€™s another thread going on right now where folks are debating whether the government should fine individuals for not buying health insurance; canā€™t someone argue in favor of free markets, for both the people and the corporations against the government? > > If I think the authorities should get a warrant to tap a manā€™s phone, isnā€™t it okay for me to think they should get a warrant to do likewise for a corporation? If Iā€™m against them taking _ **your** _ property without just compensation, canā€™t I _ **also** _ oppose them doing the same thing to IBM or Coca-Cola? I donā€™t think insurance companies have a _property right_ in their profit margins, though. If I own a private security company, I have a right to not have the government just swoop down and nationalize my business without compensation; and for the most part there would seem to be little justification even for the government exercising its right of eminent domain and nationalizing me _with_ compensation, since this is not (as the right is always pointing out) a socialist country. Howeverā€“Suppose my private security company has been thriving because the town I live in doesnā€™t actually have its own police department. Residents have to rely on the county sheriffā€™s department, which is understaffed and has to cover a much larger area than just the one town; so all the businessmen of the town pay for my security patrols to cover their establishments. Many upper class and even some middle class residents also pay to have my security company watch their homes as well. The poor and some of the middle class, who canā€™t afford my services (and some of whom live in neighborhoods so bad that I refuse to even send my guys into them) just have to deal with life the best they can. Now, the town council is proposing to create a professional police force to enforce law and order everywhere within the city limits. This is not a government ā€œtakingā€ against my private security company, and I donā€™t get to sue anybody under the 5th Amendment. I can either adaptā€“private security companies do exist and do business, even in communities with ā€œsocialized police servicesā€ā€“or I can go out of business. Sucks to be me in the latter case. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/52 "2009-09-10T00:34:22Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So the pundits who say ā€œwe have the best health care system in the worldā€ arenā€™t arguing for status quo, but just arguing against making serious and fundamental change to it? Or at least a specific type of serious and fundamental change? I think theyā€™re of varying opinions. I think that the one thing that the group you mention would agree on is that they donā€™t think a public option is a good one. The reason Iā€™m not an advocate is that I think it will, in fact, put an end to private insurance as we know it. Now, that might be a good thing. But as we get rid of all that we hate about it, might we also lose what is good about it? And once that bell is rung, itā€™s very hard to unring it. But I know of not one person who is an advocate of the status quo. Most on the right want tort reform, which would help lower costs, the ability for insurers to compete across state lines, and a change in the rules regarding pre-existing conditions and a company being able to just dump you. Also, there is a question as to what, precisely, the problem is we are trying to fix. Is it insurance for every single person? And how many people is that? You hear numbers like 47 million. But that includes, for instance, 12 million illegal immigrants, which Obama says his plan would not cover. It also covers a few million who already qualify for Medicaid, but just havenā€™t filled out the forms. It includes a few million who make over $75,000, who can afford it, but choose to spend their money elsewhere. So how big is the real problem we are trying to fix? The larger it is, the grander the changes that would make sense. But if the numbers are much smaller, and we could accomplish what we want with smaller changes and more regulations, why not do that and not dismantle a health care system that is the envy of the world. To what degree is the financial catastrophe that people kind find themselves in due to serious illness? If that is the real problem, might there not be other ways around it? If the problem is children, that, too, might allow for a more targeted fix. But the larger point is that I think virtually everyone agrees something needs to be done. Can you point to anyone who wants things to stay as they are? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/53 "2009-09-10T02:36:31Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I donā€™t think insurance companies have a _property right_ in their profit margins, though. > > If I own a private security company, I have a right to not have the government just swoop down and nationalize my business without compensationā€¦ I can either adaptā€“private security companies do exist and do business, even in communities with ā€œsocialized police servicesā€ā€“or I can go out of business. Sucks to be me in the latter case. I may be getting a bit mixed up on posting what where, given the multiple threads covering the health-insurance proposals. Still, what Iā€™d had in mind on this bit was the _ **other** _ stuff thatā€™s in play: the barriers to selling insurance across state lines, the impending commands to private insurers regarding folks with pre-existing conditions, and so on. And so when Elvis wrote _ā€œItā€™s stunning to me to see so many people argue that the rights the government should hold primary are not those of the people, but of the insurance companies.ā€_ ā€“ well, come to look back, Iā€™m not sure anyone in this thread _ **had** _ made that argument when he made that statement, but I replied to the statement without looking to see exactly what ā€œrightsā€ were being touted. As it turns out, Iā€™m not seeing any; Iā€™ll therefore gladly drop the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/54 "2009-09-10T05:50:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But I know of not one person who is an advocate of the status quo. Most on the right want tort reform, which would help lower costs, the ability for insurers to compete across state lines, and a change in the rules regarding pre-existing conditions and a company being able to just dump you. > > Also, there is a question as to what, precisely, the problem is we are trying to fix. Is it insurance for every single person? And how many people is that? You hear numbers like 47 million. But that includes, for instance, 12 million illegal immigrants, which Obama says his plan would not cover. It also covers a few million who already qualify for Medicaid, but just havenā€™t filled out the forms. It includes a few million who make over $75,000, who can afford it, but choose to spend their money elsewhere. Iā€™m unconvinced on the need for tort reform for _this particular problem_, for reasons mentioned in threads specifically about it. Some of the rest of what you mention, though, Iā€™m viscerally behind. As for those numbers, much of it was addressed in [this reply](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11453793&postcount=101) to a post of yours in another thread. I assume you found the analysis there unavailing? > [@](#): > > But the larger point is that I think virtually everyone agrees something needs to be done. Can you point to anyone who wants things to stay as they are? [Well, hereā€™s one,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11538110&postcount=104) but then, itā€™s a poster here on the SDMB, and not a policymaker or prominent pundit, so that might not be what you have in mind. However, I believe the idea of this being the only person who believes this way is 0%. And, of course, you did say ā€œvirtually,ā€ so you acknowledge that such people DO exist. Whether theyā€™re as vanishingly small a minority as you claim is something not even I know. (ETA: On second glance, I see Iā€™m the one who used the word ā€œpundits.ā€ And Iā€™m not about to say that **Stephe96** is just parroting someone elseā€™s line. So I apologize if I was being unclear. But then, again, it depends on how YOU saw my question, so weā€™ll let it stand for now, just in case.) As an aside, I hear the Republicans claim that they have a plan or three of their own. I think this is a good thing; it allows the voters to gauge their seriousness, and to hear what they think the flaws in the system are. I look forward to hearing what they are. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/55 "2009-09-10T06:36:58Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Iā€™m unconvinced on the need for tort reform for _this particular problem_, for reasons mentioned in threads specifically about it. Some of the rest of what you mention, though, Iā€™m viscerally behind. Tort reform is not going to solve the overall problem, but it will help lower costs. At least those that are due to malpractice insurance, both directly and indirectly. > [@Leaper](#): > > As for those numbers, much of it was addressed in [this reply](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11453793&postcount=101) to a post of yours in another thread. I assume you found the analysis there unavailing? I donā€™t have problem with most of what **brickbacon** offered. We both agree that costs must come down. That insurance is effectively out of the reach of many working people who would pay a reasonable amount for it. The question, I think, is to what degree can measures excluding a public option get us there. If we can get there through changes in rules and increased competition, that would be a good thing. If we try that and canā€™t get there, Iā€™d be willing to consider a public option. I do think he discounts the point of the cartoon too quickly. My point there, and here, is that the basic argument for this drastic reform is that there are 47 million people who are uninsured. So the thinking is that through this reform we will insure them. But that is misleading. I think we have the right to have a clear understanding of precisely what the problem is now, the way things will be after this reform works itā€™s magic, and the cost (not just monetarily) of getting from A to B. This ā€œ47 million people are suffering without insuranceā€ is too much an appeal to emotion for me. At the very least, 12 million of them are illegals that Obama claims his plan will NOT cover. And whether the numbers in that cartoon are correct or not, the overall number does get whittled down but whatever numbers are in those groups identified. > [@Leaper](#): > > [Well, hereā€™s one,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11538110&postcount=104) but then, itā€™s a poster here on the SDMB, and not a policymaker or prominent pundit, so that might not be what you have in mind. However, I believe the idea of this being the only person who believes this way is 0%. And, of course, you did say ā€œvirtually,ā€ so you acknowledge that such people DO exist. Whether theyā€™re as vanishingly small a minority as you claim is something not even I know. To be honest, Iā€™m not sure how literal Iā€™d be in interpreting what he said. I took it more of a rant to make a point. (Though Iā€™d like him to clarify for himself.) But you may very well be right about what he believes. And whether he is or isnā€™t, I guess there are others. Itā€™s just that Iā€™ve never met anyone of that mind, or read or heard that opinion offered. I really find it hard to believe that anyone interested enough in this issue to have a strong opinion would be of the mind that it is absolutely perfect and has no problems. But Iā€™m not playing semantic games with you and trying to win a point by pointing to ā€œpunditā€. I accept a much more liberal read of what you were asking and was answering in that vein. I must say, that I do appreciate the responsibility you take with your words and the graciousness with which you are willing to accept some fault that might lie within them. > [@Leaper](#): > > As an aside, I hear the Republicans claim that they have a plan or three of their own. I think this is a good thing; it allows the voters to gauge their seriousness, and to hear what they think the flaws in the system are. I look forward to hearing what they are. Hell, I certainly hope so. Something definitely needs to be done. And soon. This is a real problem for a large swath of the populace. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/56 "2009-09-10T06:53:19Z")
No, I donā€™t think it would force them out of business, just make them more competitive and lower prices for the private insurance consumer. I mean itā€™s really quite pussyish, but predictable, for these big, bad, tough Free- Market, Republicans to get all up-in arms about competing with a Free- Market plan to insure the other- what, 17% of uninsured Americans? Hospitals are going to make out, no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/57 "2009-09-10T07:03:42Z")
I mean, itā€™s almost like the capitalists are afraid to compete against socialism. They have the market share! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/58 "2009-09-10T07:48:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tort reform is not going to solve the overall problem, but it will help lower costs. At least those that are due to malpractice insurance, both directly and indirectly. Youā€™re looking at a pretty minuscule percentage of the costs of the overall problem, though. According to [this article](http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html), > [@](#): > > [T]he push for tort reform rests largely on anecdotal evidence of the occasional large jury verdict or outrageous lawsuit. Despite the perception that ā€œjackpot justiceā€ has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a much different picture. > > The most reliable estimates peg the costs of malpractice litigation at 2 percent of overall health care costs. And while tort reform measures have helped tamp down malpractice premiums, national health spending continues to rise. > > ā€œIf youā€™re talking about payments made on behalf of doctors or hospitals to plaintiffs, thatā€™s actually a drop in the bucket compared to the nationā€™s $2.2 trillion in health care costs,ā€ said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University. In short, the tort reform that the right seems to be advocating as one of a handful of improvement strategies would at best affect only a few percent of total health care costs. Sounds a bit like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound because, hey, although itā€™s not going to solve the overall problem, it will at least help to reduce **some** of the blood flow. Yeah, you can argue that every little bit helps, but if the bitā€™s as little as all that, is it really worth advocating it as a significant part of the solution? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/59 "2009-09-10T16:37:07Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I donā€™t think insurance companies have a _property right_ in their profit margins, though. ā€œFreedomā€ under free enterprise includes accepting a risk of failure, no matter how large the enterprise. Or at least it used to, until the last administration starting bailing out everybody with a name big enough to be recognizable. > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > And so when Elvis wrote ā€œItā€™s stunning to me to see so many people argue that the rights the government should hold primary are not those of the people, but of the insurance companies.ā€ ā€“ well, come to look back, Iā€™m not sure anyone in this thread had made that argument when he made that statement (I take it you donā€™t look like Robert Redford šŸ˜‰ ) No, no one has stated that explicitly or even consciously, but itā€™s still the operating assumption of the OP and a few respondents such as **jtgain** , isnā€™t it? Their concerns as stated here are over the insurance companiesā€™ (nonexistent) ā€œrightsā€ to profit margins, not over any rights their customers might have. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411/60 "2009-09-10T18:57:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, no one has stated that explicitly or even consciously, but itā€™s still the operating assumption of the OP and a few respondents such as **jtgain** , isnā€™t it? Their concerns as stated here are over the insurance companiesā€™ (nonexistent) ā€œrightsā€ to profit margins, not over any rights their customers might have. Please read my previous posts. I never said that insurance companies have any rights to continue to have their profit margins. My contention was with Obamaā€™s claim that private insurance will continue to thrive as is, and I contend that is incorrect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-public-option-force-insurance-out-of-business/509411.md?page=4)