Competition lacking among private health insurers

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Competition lacking among private health insurers


Aug 22, 10:30 PM (ET)

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition - just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.

Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.

Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies.

"There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."

Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.

A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.

"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090823/D9A8AJD02.html
 
gee....when att had a monopoly no one suggested creating a public telephone company....no, you used the law to break up private companies INSTEAD of expanding our LIMITED form of government....

all you guys want to do is have the government running your lives....why...i have no idea...you love the nanny state
 
Did you ever call for increased regulation of the health care industry before you saw the writing on the wall?
 
Last edited:
DNC said:
Did you ever call for increased regulation if the health care industry before you saw the writing on the wall?
Click to expand...

if i didn't see the writing moron.....then i didn't see a problem now did i....:pke:

why do you want a nanny state? can't take care of yoruself?
 
Yurt said:
if i didn't see the writing moron.....then i didn't see a problem now did i....:pke:

why do you want a nanny state? can't take care of yoruself?
Click to expand...

for Progressives it's all about POWER..they could care less about the "little people" unless they can find more ways to squeeze money from them..
 
Yurt said:
gee....when att had a monopoly no one suggested creating a public telephone company....no, you used the law to break up private companies INSTEAD of expanding our LIMITED form of government....

all you guys want to do is have the government running your lives....why...i have no idea...you love the nanny state
Click to expand...

I like the cheaper prices one can acquire.

Remember the days when airlines were, oh, never mind!
 
meme said:
for Progressives it's all about POWER..they could care less about the "little people" unless they can find more ways to squeeze money from them..
Click to expand...

My gawd are you Rip Van Winkle, where were you kept for the last 30 years?
 
None of the reform proposals in Congress could be construed as a "government takeover", but that lie is all the rightwingnuts can cling to.
 
DNC said:
None of the reform proposals in Congress could be construed as a "government takeover", but that lie is all the rightwingnuts can cling to.
Click to expand...

sure it is....it is about creating a government run insurance company...it is about the government creating more and more rules that nearly amount to a takeover of the insurance industry....

as i said which you of course ignored....why not simply do what we did with AT&T....we didn't create a government run phone company....

why do you want a nanny state? the governmetn is not responsible for everything goign right in your life....that is an incorrect view of the constitution
 
Yurt said:
sure it is....it is about creating a government run insurance company...

why do you want a nanny state?
Click to expand...

That's odd.

I was under the impression that all Cons keep their money in banks insured by FDIC. Why don't you move your money to a b ank, where your deposit isn't insured by the government? Worked great in 1929!

And I was under the impression that Cons, when they lost their jobs, were only to happy to accept unemployment insurance, or worker's comp.

Why haven't Cons been demanding the elimination of FDIC, worker's comp, and unemployment insurance provided by the government?

I've never, not one single time, heard you or any Con demand they be eliminated. Why not? Why haven't you moved your money to a non-FDIC insured institution?


Which gets back to my point, about how the health care debate is really about something else. It's really not about your alleged anger and apprehension at government insurance.


edit: Oh, and I've also seen a few message board Cons, who presumably have physical disabilities, whining about how much they need the government to give them their government disability insurance payments.

So, why are Cons in favor of government bank deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance? Why have they never whined for the elimination of these nanny-state insurance programs?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Government is not a legitimate competitor. They will always win, not because they are superior but because they are the government.
 
Yurt said:
gee....when att had a monopoly no one suggested creating a public telephone company....no, you used the law to break up private companies INSTEAD of expanding our LIMITED form of government....

all you guys want to do is have the government running your lives....why...i have no idea...you love the nanny state
Click to expand...

And the phone companies were a profit regulated monopoly. And made nice profits and had some of the most deisreable stock to hold for many years.

Perhaps the same for insurance companies?
 
Cypress said:
That's odd.

I was under the impression that all Cons keep their money in banks insured by FDIC. Why don't you move your money to a b ank, where your deposit isn't insured by the government? Worked great in 1929!

And I was under the impression that Cons, when they lost their jobs, were only to happy to accept unemployment insurance, or worker's comp.

Why haven't Cons been demanding the elimination of FDIC, worker's comp, and unemployment insurance provided by the government?

I've never, not one single time, heard you or any Con demand they be eliminated. Why not? Why haven't you moved your money to a non-FDIC insured institution?


Which gets back to my point, about how the health care debate is really about something else. It's really not about your alleged anger and apprehension at government insurance.
Click to expand...

there was no insurer of bank deposits or insurer of unemployment for the government to put out of business.....though incidentally, there are plenty of private worker's compensation insurers, in Michigan for example, the state operates only a second injury fund which is a re-insurer......

I see what you mean though about the health debate being about something else, since your examples aren't related to what is being attempted in health care.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top