Please give me your thoughts on these questions:

[jamesatemple]

What would be the immediate effect upon insurance companies if Congress passed HR 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill?

Would the for-profit, corporate health insurance companies just close their doors?

If so, what would happen to the tens-of-thousands of folks who work for the health insurance companies?

What would those investors who depend upon income from stocks and bonds of health insurance companies do to replace that income?

I understand that Kucinich's plan would be implemented over a number of years but that doesn't explain its effect; it merely spreads the effect over time.

I can't tell you how much I would love to see universal, single-payer, medicare-for-all health-care for every citizen of this great country. But, how would one go about implementing it with the least disastrous consequences...if there are any?

I realize that the profits gained and the incentive for more profits would highly motivate (has highly motivated) the richest corporations in our country to fight "tooth-and-nail" against any plan that would adversely affect their "bottom lines"...from "buying off" legislators with campaign contributions; to paying for and organizing anti-change demonstrations by a group which might very well make up nearly half of the citizens of this country (the ill-informed, the racists, the willfully ignorant, and the brainwashed "sheep"); to character assassinations of proponents of change; to websites and advertising campaigns that disseminate false information.

Even if we were strong enough to overcome those highly funded opponents, is there a way to implement our preferred health-care plan with a minimum adverse effect?

[ejpoeta]

1. if i am not mistaken, i do believe there was something in that bill that dealt with workers

and i believe most of them would be absorbed by the system as medicare would need more people there. insurance companies would probably be just fine, being able to sell supplemental insurance as they do today for medicare.

[jamesatemple]

5. That seems to be a sensible arrangement, ejpoeta.

And, with the need for life insurance, property insurance, et al, I can see that there would be a place for the existence of insurance companies. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Joanne98]

2. They would have to get NEW jobs.

[jamesatemple]

6. I'll bet that you are just having some fun with that response, Joanne.

And, what you say is true. The more definitive question remains (for those who don't care to offer whimsical opinions): If the tens of thousands of workers are unemployed by the implementation of single-payer health-care, how detrimental will that consequence be upon that group?

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to restate the question. I appreciate your participation in this thread.

[TxRider]

15. I think that number is a very very low estimate of insurance jobs...

[jamesatemple]

18. You know, Tx

I'll bet that you are correct. Still, as others have pointed out, many (perhaps, most) could find like jobs providing claim services in the public sector.

[shraby]

3. I actually have no sympathy for the investor class..they helped

cause a lot of the problems this country now faces. The workers in the insurance industry who have been instrumental in killing people by disallowing care they were covered for and also dropping those who get sick or suddenly have a pre-existing condition can just join the army the same way the rest of the out of work people do.

[jamesatemple]

8. I wish I could delineate between members of the "investor class".

I suspect that a great number of those folks would be the very rich who let their dollars earn more money for them. Still, I think that quite a large number would be made up of retired folks who have invested some bit of their savings in income producing securities.

In either case, though, those folks could transfer their funds to other investment/income securities. I don't think it would be prohibitively costly nor difficult for them to do so.

Thanks for your response, shraby.

[shraby]

10. Your welcome..I would guess many oldsters are like us,

pretty diversified with what little we have and rely mostly on SS and it's getting harder to do it even with a small pension because of insurance costs..not only to cover part B, but part D for my husband..I have Wisconsin SeniorCare right now, then there is car and house ins. to pay plus a small life ins. for me so Mr. Shraby can put me in the ground in something besides wrapped in a blanket.

[lapislzi]

11. I don't think the OP is referring to the investor class

I believe he/she is stating a valid concern for the middle and lower strata of workers who process claims, liaise with doctors' offices, and perform all the functions of the bloated bureaucracy that is the parasitic insurance "industry." Many of these positions would, in fact, be eliminated in a more streamlined system. Those workers would then be part of the pool of unemployed.

One would hope that other administration initiatives (clean energy, for example) could help to create jobs that would absorb these workers.

[jamesatemple]

19. It can't even hazard a guess as to the effect of a transition of

health-care to a single-payer system. And, you are "spot on" with regard to my concern about the insurance jobs of ordinary working folks. If, as we've been told, the overhead cost of managing a public health-care system is some 20% (or greater) less expensive than that of private insurance operations, then a large number of folks could stand to lose their jobs.

It appears that we, as a group of concerned citizens, would want to incorporate those jobs that you elucidate in our plans for universal health-care.

Thank you for your wise counsel.

[treestar]

4. It would definitely take time

And that's why it's hard to pass. A threat to so many jobs.

I remember how we, at a tort law firm, opposed no fault auto insurance. We thought we'd all be out of jobs. It spread to people who sold things to us, like court reporters and translators.

Reassuring these people would be better than just hating on their employers.

[Love Bug]

7. Those for-profit companies will have to become non-profit claims shops

What needs to happen is those insurance companies will need to get government contracts to handle the millions of claims that will still exist even if universal healthcare becomes a reality. Most of their employees would still have jobs, probably doing what they were already doing before.

[jamesatemple]

9. Excellent response, Love Bug!

I feel better about the consequences of single-payer health-care already.

[Love Bug]

13. I used to work for a Third Party Administrator (claim-shop)

If the U.S. switched to universal single-payer tomorrow there would still be the matter of all the paperwork involved in processing claims for payment, even if there is only one payer. The govt. would have to contract with companies to do this enormous task for them and that's what would inevitably happen to most insurance companies. I can see the big ones, like the Blues and UHC getting most of that "pie" because they have the means already in place to process large numbers of claims efficiently.

[omega minimo]

12. Less "adverse" than the illness, deaths, damages, bankrupticies, tragedies under the current system?

[jamesatemple]

14. I'm certainly not denying the tragedies resulting from the current health-care mess.

I feel that the problems caused by a move to a single-payer plan will pale in comparison to those resulting from the current health-care debacle. What I'm trying to determine what are those issues that might be complicit with the implementation of a single-payer health-plan. In fact, based upon the very instructive replies that I've read so far in this thread, I'm beginning to believe that, other than taking a bit of time, the change could be managed without a great deal of difficulty...a huge amount of work, perhaps, but not a great deal of difficulty.

Thanks for joining in, omega.

[omega minimo]

16. A rhetorical question to add some perspective, not directed at you.

No need to get snitty.

[jamesatemple]

17. Snitty?

I didn't take offense at your initial response. Nor did I intend anything but "thanks" in my reply. Are you reading more into my posts than I intend?

[ThomWV]

20. Where are the buggy-whip makers now?

Is this also a good reason not to cut our military spending - because it employs so may people? What would they do if they weren't making missles and bombs, Preditor drones and nuclear submarines? And how about all those good people at NSA, what would they do if they weren't spying on us - how would they feed their children?

[jamesatemple]

21. I don't reckon that the loss of insurance company jobs

is any kind of reason, good or bad, not to implement single-payer health-care, Thom. We can discuss those other industries in another thread if you like. I'm asking if the implementation of single-payer, universal health-care would have much of, if any, adverse effect upon folks employed in the insurance industry.

In answer to your question: In my humble opinion, I don't believe that the loss of insurance industry jobs is a good reason not to implement single-payer health-care. Nor do I suggest that job loss is a good reason for not cutting our military spending. Are you advocating that we should shut down the military supply industry? I really think that you should reconsider your proposal to abandon our military and security efforts.