How many people believe that the reason single payer isn't on the table is because....

[YewNork]

It's the one option that would take away the insurance companies' bread and butter.
After all, it would take away all their customers and move them onto one plan.

The insurance companies would have to extremely restructure their companies
with no guarantee of making the same type of profits as they are now.

I mean, let's get down to brass tacks as they say. That's the reason isn't it.
It's the insurance companies' worst nightmare come true.

[Old Codger]

1. You Bet N/T

[hobbit709]

2. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!

[Oregone]

3. What is their bread and butter?

And why would they not be able to make profits still?

What if you moved the insurance companies to only covering proportionaly high deductible/co-pay services like eye-care/drugs/dental.

They could make a fortune on those things alone. This is how Canada's plan is structured. The insurance companies do fine there. They just aren't allowed to touch basic health care. They couldn't match the governments plan by price and they couldn't match it on service.

[YewNork]

8. But would they make as much profit? They have a good thing going. Why should they want to gamble?

[Oregone]

12. They would probably make more profit proportional to revenue

But less gross profits, yes, because their revenue would drop dramatically.

With that said, it would probably lead to quite a bit of consolidation in the industry, and if a company could possibly triple the market share via acquisitions, they may break even on the profit side. Yes, it would take some restructuring, but the giants would survive and do fine I bet.

[cabluedem]

34. They live on premiums and denying payments. They are parasites of death. nt

[Ewellian]

37. They don't just live

on premiums and denying payments. They also live on providing customer service and payment processing services for an administrative fee....for employer's self - funded health benefits plans and also Medicare (those aren't federal employees doing the work). There's no incentive to deny payments....the goal is to pay benefits according to the contract with 100% accuracy (or lose the contract)

[Arctic Dave]

4. From my grasp of the situation, I would agree.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I think that's pretty much it.

[sarcasmo]

6. Bingo, and it just shows you that insurance companies have way to much power.

[Birthmark]

7. Just shut up and pay your premium.

Signed,

Your friends at Big Insurance.

We can also insure your cat!!

[YewNork]

26. Except those of you with a pre-existing condition that they don't sell to in the first place.

[KT2000]

9. Right now the insurance

companies are exercising just about complete control over who has access to health care. This is what the politicians and RW economists want. Horrible things are being done to people and the insurance companies are happy to do it - they can even make a profit.
Single payer would give the people more of a voice in how our health care system is run and stop the crule and sometimes murderous practices that save money.

I think it comes down to who we are as a people.

[baldguy]

10. The Ins Co.s paid good money to keep it off the table.

They're getting their money's worth

[panader0]

11. Next: Single payer auto and home insurance!

[Oregone]

13. Up in BC, the auto-department offers insurance

Most everyone must have basic autoplan through the government, which is also brokered privately. Extra coverage through other people can be picked up.

There is little of a reason for the insurance industry to have multiple payers really (Especially when the profits and administrative overhead is so high). Only the deductible/co-pay, or extended aspect of insurance warrants a private market. Im not sure why people can't see this.

[cdsilv]

14. Actually it is the coming retirement of the baby boom tha t.....

...has ins co's freaking out. Once the baby boom moves to medicare, the ins cos lose ALOT of revenue - revenue, not just profit. That's why they want the mandated purchase of health care ins from THEM!

[Oregone]

15. Considering that, is this "reform" a hidden give-away to them from the Democrats of all people

That being, if Medicare is scaled back in place of private insurers (to catch the Boomers), then it seems like no greater concession could be given at this time to the insurance industry. Say it aint so.

[robinlynne]

29. It is absolutely so.

[YewNork]

23. How are they going to mandate the purchase from people that the ins. companies refuse to insure?

[YewNork]

22. Some, but not all, Canadian provinces have single payer automobile insurance.

The basic minimum auto insurance is a single payer company in many provinces. You can then buy more than the minimum either by going to a private insurance company for the additional insurance, or in some cases you can buy it all from the single payer.

For an example check out:

In British Columbia - ICBC In BC, to register your car you go to a private insurance broker to purchase the single payer insurance, as well as to be given the option to buy addition private insurance.
In Saskatchewan - SGI
In Manitoba - Autopac

There is no single payer automobile insurance in Alberta, which is very conservative, nor in Ontario. I'm not sure about the other provinces.

[xchrom]

16. if only my reps and senators would do as good a job representing me

as they do corporations.

and not just insurance companies.

[tinrobot]

17. Single payer pretty much puts them out of business.

Of course they're going to oppose it with every means possible.

We need to use every means to support it.

[Skink]

18. If the public option isn't there what is the Government doing?

[jwirr]

19. Of course there is no other reason for them to oppose it. Our health

care bill is threatening to become the bailout instrument for Big Pharma & the insurance companies.

[peacetalksforall]

20. I have no right to say this and I hope I'm corrected, but it seems that the

failure of their industry would impact the ripple economy the least. By ripple economy, I mean the companies that profit from sales to them. The ripple effect from them would be less than GM? The effect of their employees would be awful, but not so much affiliated and sub-strata businesses? Guide me, please, if I'm way out of line here.

[YewNork]

25. So we shouldn't simplify the tax code, because it would put the people at H&R Block out of work?

Yes, it would ripple through the insurance industry and the companies and people who work for them. But, I can't see why we should let people go without proper health care in order to maintain someone else's job.

[peacetalksforall]

31. Sorry, I must not have written that fully. I am for the best coverage for all citizens - public.

Yes, it means job losses for employees of FOR BIG PROFIT insurance companies.
But, the ripple effect from insurance companies shutting down may not be as devastating as some other industries.

The corrections to this sick country are going to be difficult - I simply said the impact will be less for insurance corporations than auto corporations.

I might add - when the employees are congregated in small towns or cities - it could be bad. Omaha, I believe, is home to a big labor force - focused on insurance. It could be very bad locally.

Coverage for everyone at a fair cost is a must.

Is that clearer?

[global1]

21. So Let's Save The Insurance Companies And Screw The People......(sarcasm) nt

[prairierose]

24. That would certainly seem to be a valid assumption...

based on the available evidence.

[patrice]

27. Yep. We're seeing whose jobs are secured by Socialism and whose jobs are outsourced by dog-eat-dog

Capitalism.

But, really, though, SP affects ONLY the insurance jobs associated with processing claims and making payments. People will still buy insurance/pay premiums, which insurance companies will still collect and invest, but that money will be paidout on claims though a Medicare-style payer system.

[BadgerKid]

28. Yep, too many upper mgt. jobs at stake. n/t

[Tumbulu]

30. I think you got it (nt)

[Kablooie]

32. I don't think single payer as the only option is a good idea.

But a viable government option alternative to private companies is essential.

The gov would provide good basic coverage but if you choose to pay more you could
get things like private rooms in hospitals and other extras for a fee.

[YewNork]

35. And that's the kind of insurance that private companies could sell if single payer were adopted

Private insurance companies could move into selling insurance that enhances the coverage
under either single payer or some other public plan.

But, the way the insurance companies operate now, they make more profit under a system
that doesn't cover everyone, than they would under a system that did cover everyone,
and they're going to fight any attempt to change it.

And, as I've said, as long as most people have insurance coverage, all the insurance
companies have to do is generate enough confusion and fear to stop the momentum in any
change.

[kster]

33. My two cents, no # 1 would be

the divorce rate would go through the roof, husband would no longer need wife or visa-a-versa for health care benefits.

No#2 you wouldn't need to stay at a company just for benefits, you could go to a company that pays less and/or has hours to fit your lifestyle.

No# 3 and most important if you are a 10 year employee and you didn't take days off and you were a dedicated employee, the companies would have to fight "money wise" to keep you working for their company. AND THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

They were only able to keep you because of the benefits.

K&R

[PHIMG]

36. It would also impact the labor market

Just think if you could switch jobs, go back to school, take time off to raise your kids, start a business without effecting your health insurance. I would expect that Single Payer would in the long term cause higher labor costs. This is another reason why some businesses are against it.

Give the peasants some health security, not to much lest they get uppity.

[elehhhhna]

38. If WE'D AGREE TO OUTSOURCE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN

oops sorry about the caps -- we should offer this as a take it or leave it option. They'd still exist and still make money --albeit in smaller, leaner form and no gouging or pricefixing allowed.

And hey -- if their current "health" isnurance service plans are soooo fantastic and competitive, perhaps they can be peddled elsewhere in the world, as well as to Americans with extra money to spend.