HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Outlawing Health Insuranc...

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:52 PM

Outlawing Health Insurance Companies is a Losing Argument

Granted, they have abused our capitalist system. However, too many voters would be concerned that other types of businesses may be outlawed. There are a myriad of ways to get to full health coverage for all Americans and certainly increasing sensible regulations over the insurers makes more sense. Iím afraid Vowing to outlaw the health insurance companies would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

37 replies, 1257 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Outlawing Health Insurance Companies is a Losing Argument (Original post)
dlk Jul 2019 OP
ProudMNDemocrat Jul 2019 #1
dlk Jul 2019 #3
uponit7771 Jul 2019 #15
Ilsa Jul 2019 #18
ooky Jul 2019 #33
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #2
dlk Jul 2019 #6
SWBTATTReg Jul 2019 #12
Turin_C3PO Jul 2019 #4
onecaliberal Jul 2019 #5
dansolo Jul 2019 #16
onecaliberal Jul 2019 #35
Docreed2003 Jul 2019 #34
nycbos Jul 2019 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #11
emmaverybo Jul 2019 #30
Thyla Jul 2019 #23
customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #8
Bettie Jul 2019 #13
customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #17
Bettie Jul 2019 #20
customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #26
Meadowoak Jul 2019 #14
customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #19
Meadowoak Jul 2019 #22
customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #25
Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #9
dansolo Jul 2019 #21
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #27
area51 Jul 2019 #10
Vinca Jul 2019 #24
LiberalArkie Jul 2019 #28
BlueJac Jul 2019 #29
democratisphere Jul 2019 #31
Celerity Jul 2019 #32
Gothmog Jul 2019 #36
LanternWaste Jul 2019 #37

Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:55 PM

1. Slowly driving them out of business is better...

By providing Americans with an option plan to buy into Medicare or a Single Payer plan that will ultimately over time, stifle the profits to the major Health Insurers, causing them to either bow to the will of the American people or die slowly from suffocation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:57 PM

3. Agreed-It Accomplishes the Same Result Minus the Backlash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:18 PM

15. +1,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:21 PM

18. I think planning a long transition would be better.

Let the insurance companies and employers make gradual transitions from regular policies to supplementals. Employers can save money moving anyone 55 and over to Medicare (new age to qualify). This makes keeping an older workforce a little more desirable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:19 PM

33. Yes.

Our immediate focus needs to be on those who don't have affordable access now. There is no need to go after everyone at this time. My preference would be for the House to pass a bill now that addresses that aspect now, in the form of an ACA rescue/improvement plan, that all dems candidates campaign on for 2020. I think it's important we get something tangible and concrete on the table now that all voters can understand, and I believe most of the 2018 voters who voted us to the House majority are fully expecting us to do this anyway. That could also provide a public option, which should be particularly appealing to voters in states that didn't expand Medicaid or across the country for voters who's employer insurance isn't all that great. And we need to make sure we communicate to the public it's all optional and that nobody is going to be forced off of anything they already like. Then people will start to move over to government health care options at their own pace as they begin to realize what they are being offered is indeed better and more affordable than what they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:56 PM

2. But they can be better regulated.

Regulation of insurance companies is left almost entirely to the states - federal regulation is pretty minimal. Until the ACA was passed there was very little federal regulation of health insurance at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:00 PM

6. The Laissez-Faire Approach Needs to Go & the Federal Government Needs to Step Up

When left to their own devices, corporations often misbehave. Greed is too powerful a motivator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:07 PM

12. I think you're absolutely right! Greed has made a come back in rump's admin. Plain ol' ugly ...

greed and predatory capitalism. I can't wait until rump and cronies are nailed to the wall for numerous crimes, financial and otherwise. Take care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:59 PM

4. I think

our candidates will step back from outlawing private insurance. You can leave it as an option and still make Medicare available to all. The hope would be that people would see that Medicare is better and, slowly, we wouldnít need private insurance companies except for optional procedures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:59 PM

5. No one is arguing outlawing them. We're arguing that they shouldn't be able to make obscene profits

At the expense of the system or you know, actual healthcare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:18 PM

16. Bernie is

Along with anyone supporting his Medicare for All bill. It explicitly outlaws private health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dansolo (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:27 PM

35. Kamala supports Medicare for all, but not banning private insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:25 PM

34. I would suggest reading the current Senate Plan for Medicare for All

It very clearly outlaws private insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:00 PM

7. It a losing argument period.

Every country that has universal healthcare as a right also has private health insurance companies. People in these nations use private healthcare as supplemental benefits.

If tomorrow you can wave a magic wand and have a "medicare for all system" and enshrine healthcare as a right we would still have a system where private care is used to supplement the national plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nycbos (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:06 PM

11. Even with Medicare as it exists now, you almost have to have a supplemental policy

because Medicare doesn't cover everything. Have any of the proponents of Medicare for All offered details of what that plan would cover? If it's like the current Medicare there will be a lot of copays and things that aren't covered (and you have to pay for Part B anyhow), so supplemental policies would be necessary. If the plan is to cover absolutely everything with no copays, deductibles or premium payments so no supplemental insurance would be needed, how will it be paid for? It would be horrifically expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:08 PM

30. Reading AARP, which hasn't weighed in on a plan, seems Medicare would provide full coverage,

and add long-term care, negotiate with drug companies to lower costs, all at substantial tax raise.

I prefer my excellent Medicare supplemental, but itís not all about me. I do, through state retirement, pay no premium, am reimbursed the fee, and have all I need except long term. Prescriptions cost very, very low.

I wonder if M4All would be as good as Medicaid for low-income people with chronic debilitating illness, disabilities, those needing home care, which includes many children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nycbos (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:37 PM

23. Absolutely

Look at Australia's model to get a good idea, you need private working with the system.
This requires regulation though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:03 PM

8. That's especially the case

with union people whose representatives have worked hard to get decent benefits for their members and the member's families. The GOP will use this as a tool to divide us, if we hand it to them on a silver platter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:10 PM

13. So, the unions negotiate for

supplemental plans, to augment the basic level of health care everyone should have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:19 PM

17. Not if that is outlawed

Yes, I realize that there is indeed supplemental insurance in most nations that have government-provided healthcare, but what is being talked about is getting rid of private insurance completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:30 PM

20. I can't see any situation where

supplemental insurance would be outlawed.

However, the role of private insurance companies should be significantly curtailed. They make obscene profits and their primary function is to deny care wherever/whenever possible, to increase their already obscene profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:50 PM

26. I agree

but the solution is something other than destruction, at least with insurance. Now, Big Pharma, on the other hand, is practically begging to be nationalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:12 PM

14. Maybe the union members could negotiate a huge raise if

Their employer was no longer on the hook for health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meadowoak (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:25 PM

19. The provision of health insurance

is not simply a financial transaction for most employers. It's about removing worry from their workers, making them more effective at doing their jobs. It's about being able to have their employees BE preferred patients with healthcare providers so that the workers can get better sooner, and back on the job.

It's about providing a safety net for a rainy day, instead of just handing over money that might not be wisely saved for that eventuality. Paternalistic, yes, but if it means low premiums, low co-pays and deductibles, high or no benefit caps, and access to the best doctors and hospitals, most union workers are OK with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:36 PM

22. If I was still in a union, I would trade that blue cross card for

Medicare and maybe a monthly 401k contribution in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meadowoak (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:49 PM

25. I understand where you're coming from

I'm retired now, and when I was working in my last job, which was union, I took the high-deductible policy and the $900 a year into my Health Savings Account, which I maxed with my own contributions. But, most people I worked with either wouldn't or couldn't sock it away like I could. I also put 20% of my pay into the 401K, only 3% got matched.

At union meetings, I would hear the blue-collar workers carp about how they weren't getting enough overtime to be able to pay for the toys they liked to buy. Conversations with fellow white-collar workers showed that they weren't great savers, either. Many were amazed when I decided to retire after only eight years on the job.

Now, my circumstances were surely exceptional. I came to the East Coast to live with my lady, and once I got a job at a decent wage, she kept my part of the household financial contribution down, as long as I did the food shopping, the cooking, the dishes and the laundry. Hey, it was no more hassle than doing it just for myself! Also, I was expected to save diligently for the retirement that both of us are now enjoying.

But as I said, most of my fellow workers were either unable or unwilling to look out for their futures in this way. They liked being able to pay tiny deductables and co-pays that meant only skipping a night out on the town. They wanted the Cadillac coverage that our union negotiated, and the union representatives prioritized that, as they should have in bargaining for the desires of a majority of the membership. The company was OK with that, they had workers, who while they had gripes about their jobs (who doesn't?) would not leave, because they couldn't get the kind of base pay and benefits that we got anywhere else.

Of course, I'm generalizing to say that the folks I worked with are typical of union workers across the US, but in the 1980's, I was a tax accountant in the area north of Seattle, and the union Boeing workers had pretty much the same opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:04 PM

9. I think that we should create a public health system option that people can choose

if people want to keep their private health insurance or have a supplemental policy, they should be allowed to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:31 PM

21. Then you don't support Bernie's plan

He explicitly outlaws any private insurance options.

SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General.óBeginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful foró

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dansolo (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:53 PM

27. That doesn't look like all private insurance is prohibited, just any that offers the same benefits

as the public MFA plan. So private insurance that covers anything that MFA doesn't cover would be allowed, just like the Medicare supplements you can buy now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:04 PM

10. They can always sell supplemental insurance,

not to mention, they can also branch out into other insurance like home, car, etc.

Our govt. is extremely reluctant to regulate these agencies; please take a look at articles on PNHP, the physicians' group, on why half-measures won't get us to lower prices or full coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:39 PM

24. I tend to agree with you. It's amazing the number of people who claim to love their private

insurance even when they can't afford the co-pays and avoid the emergency room when they should go. Dems should promote basic healthcare coverage as a right and allowing private companies to sell supplemental policies. I don't know what supplemental policies might cover, but I know everyone deserves access to wellness care and treatment when they're ill no questions asked. I also think drugs that are necessary to life - like insulin - should be free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:02 PM

28. I rely on BCBS to cover what Medicare doesn't...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:05 PM

29. Bad idea to start with...

drive them out later!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:09 PM

31. Disagree.

The white coat and white collar criminals must be put out of business in order for American Healthcare to survive. Single payer with heavy price controls is the only way forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:11 PM

32. I'm against the abolition of private insurance via legislation, but for a public option that gives

the choice to the individual. It MIGHT lead to the vast reduction of people utilising the private arena for their main healthcare needs, but that is not a fait accompli.

That all said, there is very little chance that we will even get the public option passed. Due to decades of RW gerrymandering, voter suppression, and propaganda, the electoral districting and overall structural landscape (at US House and state assembly level) have been tilted to a much further RW milieu than is proportional to the actual distribution at broad overall population levels.

Look at our current Democratic caucus. It is composed of around half of very moderate centrists (New Democrat Coalition, Blue Dogs, and Problem Solvers, etc), some (such as the 20-odd strong No Label/Problem Solvers group) bordering on what would be considered 'Rockefeller Republican-lite' types back a couple decades ago (when talking in terms of economic stances.)

There is very, very little chance we are going to able to drag enough of those centrists over in numbers sufficient to pass a truly massive structural change like a public option, let alone the Medicare for All complete takeover. They are in purple, pink and even outright red districts. They will be terrified of losing their seats over voting for something that is already pre-cooked (false as it may be) to be labelled as pure, outright socialism. The public option will be attacked in such a manner, in multivariate attacks that will be far from a Rethug-only thing (see my next paragraph.) Other centrists/moderates will simply, regardless of any electoral fears, be utterly against it as well for a variety of other reasons and rationales.

Furthermore, the vast lobbying power of big insurance, big healthcare (doctors and hospitals), and big pharma will spend hundreds of millions to defeat the public option. They already have done this successfully during the Obamacare debate and have outright vowed they will do it again. Many of these lobbies and Super-Pacs are massive power players in terms of fundraising for our party, including with some of our POTUS candidates.

I am really pessimistic that even if we defeat Rump, hold the House with 230, 240, to even increase to 250 or so in our caucus, and also take back the Senate with a 51 or 52 seat caucus, that the public option will sail through and be signed by our new Democratic POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 03:28 PM

36. From my twitter feed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2019, 03:33 PM

37. Outlawing Planned Parenthood is a Losing Argument

Yet, for a losing argument, it certainly has traction, a huge voting base, effective legislation, and a large donor base.



All things being equal, it takes is a year or two of effective commercial branding to compel the American people to think what we otherwise would. For the most part, we're shallow enough for that to work. Every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread