But the problem you run into is that if there is a decent public safety net, insurance companies have every incentive to aggressively toss people into it. Eventually everyone who's not an 18-35yo with no history of health problems ends up classified as "high risk" and going in the government pool, and 95% of health care is nationalized anyway. Avoiding that requires quite a bit of regulation of the insurance companies.
The more selfish problem is that every proposal I've seen for moving to an individual system almost certainly means a significant increase in costs for me and people like me. There is a very large gap between the cost of health insurance through a decent, medium-to-large employer, and what rates are like in a public high risk pool for someone with an upper-middle class income (i.e., not poor enough or major subsidies). While those NY rates I quoted may be extreme, it wouldn't be at all surprisingif rates for my wife and I went to $2,000/month.
Current Events » in reply to re: Fair enough, but apply same standard to GOP reform
I could live with that...
The whole thread (57 posts)
- Even with 60 Senators health care not a slam dunk
- Interesting that the Nays all have public health care
- "slowly phase out private industry"
- So do the "pros."
- In 6 days, my daughter will have no health insurance at all.
- Just let private enterprise handle it.
- My son passed a kidney stone...
- What state does she live in? (n/t)
- And by the way...
- In 6 days, my daughter will have no health insurance at all.
- re: slam dunk
- One more proof of the need for a TOTAL ban on all campaign contributions. (n/t)
- Then who pays for elections?
- Nobody. Elections will have strict limits of $10,000 for Congress & $100,000 for President paid out of CANDIDATE's own pocket.
- Then who pays for elections?
- Interesting that the Nays all have public health care