liberal N proud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-12-09 05:01 PM
Original message |
What I don't understand about the opposition to the public option |
|
My father retired with a very good benefit package. He was able to negotiate a package that provide full medical coverage for the remainder of his life.
He has been retired for nearly 30 years, he is 87, until a few years ago, his insurance covered everything until some change in the medicare laws during the bu$h years suddenly everything for has to be approved and submitted through medicare.
What ever medicare doesn't pick up, his plan is supposed to cover. He basically ended up with a supplemental insurance plan from what was full plan. Who benefited from that one, obviously the insurance company.
So here is the part that I don't understand, all the insurance companies were right there in line to pass some of the cost off to the taxpayer then but now they are afraid of a little public interaction now?
It makes no sense.
|
GeorgeGist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-12-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Profits make no sense. |
OHdem10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-12-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Could it be the Insurance Companies want all that subsidy money |
|
that would be provided to pay for those who cannot afford health care.
With no public option, the Health Industry is free to continue in its same for profit path. For profit means they are responsible only to the shareholders. This means the can treat us customers as they so desire. Having to compete with a public option will force them to at least consider the client's well-being. This puts them in conflict and Wall Street will not be too happy.
It boils down to greed. Nothing has changed seriously on Wall Street. Wall Street demands profit and earnings.
The public option makes them gives services to the people.
|
crikkett
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-12-09 05:21 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Insurance companies can't compete with a public option. |
|
See your father's situation was taxpayer subsidy of private profit, and what is coming our way is looking like a not-for-profit competitor who will undercut private profit.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-12-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
4. If you are not rich enough to be self insured, then you |
|
deserve to be fleeced. Or so think the insurance companies. We need to be applying the fraud laws in this country to the health insurance industry. Or even RICO. The collusion between the various companies is right out in the open. Anything to get them under control.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |