On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:20:13 -0500, thunder
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:
A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.
If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.
Why is it that so few can think this through?
Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron
http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269
The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is
a capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the
article illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and
states have options available for their respective residents. The
fact remains that states can determine their respective domestic
insurers. A federal public option will follow the course I outlined
above. It's a pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain,
nothing else. It's inhumane.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access