Lets' Get Real: Health Ins. Companies ALREADY FORCE doctors, hospitals, ... to reduce their charges

[Skwmom]

I can't believe some of the stuff people come up with...

[TheSarcastinator]

1. it's not funny

Lies such as these destroy lives.

[Skwmom]

2. No, but laughter is a good outlet. n/t

[Human101948]

3. If we get rid of the insurance companies, all the doctors can get a raise!

Of course all those insurance company drones will be on the unemployment line.

[Skwmom]

4. The insurance company workers will NOT be on the unemployment line.

Do you think workers are not going to be needed for a national health care system?

I find the use of the word drone offensive.

[Human101948]

10. Worker bees who make no honey?

I think that pretty much describes the health insurance industry.

[djean111]

5. Doubties. But, if so, they can stand with the people that H-1B visas put out of work.

And the people who lost jobs due to NAFTA. And the people who will lose jobs because of the TPP and TPIP.

ALL things Hillary is for.

[Skwmom]

6. There will still be PLENTY of jobs in national healthcare.

When I read these kinds of stupid arguments I don't know if it says more about their intellect (or rather lack thereof) or their disdain for average Americans.

[djean111]

7. Oh, I know. The hypocrisy is stunning. Wish it was surprising. n/t

[dsc]

8. then there would be no savings from single payer

you can't have it both ways. Either insurance companies have been as good at reducing those costs as the government would be, in which case the only savings would be insurance overhead (which amounts to about 4% of total health care spending) or they haven't meaning that there would be the bigger savings you and Sanders say there would be. It can't be both, so which is it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Has anybody asked physicians how they would feel about becoming de facto government employees?

DSB

[Ron Green]

11. Insurance companies reduce THEIR costs by denying care;

a rational single-payer system reduces DELIVERY costs by lowering drug prices, eliminating duplication of services, managing resources, and above all helping to build a healthier population by covering everyone.

[dsc]

12. that isn't what the poster I responded to said

and in point of fact what you are saying means costs would increase in many cases as people who weren't getting health care got it. The fact is the difference in overhead costs, while not trivial, isn't close to the savings Sanders needs for his figures to work. He would get around 4% of total costs he needs more like 40%. The fact is the only way to get close to the 40 is to squeeze providers and you would have to do so more than insurance companies do.

[Ron Green]

13. "Squeezing providers" is not exactly the way to put it,

although get-rich doctors are hopefully an artifact of the AMA 1970s and 80s.

Right now, the extreme narrowing of networks in response to the half-measures of the ACA is driving up out-of-pocket costs. The fact is that the for-profit insurance industry is able to do only what it's designed to do, which is increase shareholder value. We're going to get to double-digit decreases only by a comprehensive system that includes public health, medical school subsidies, coordinated care organizations, and more. People who scream "How are you going to pay for this?" have to understand that we're paying for it now, we're just not getting it.

[mythology]

14. Not to the extent that medicare does