AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:04 AM
Original message |
I just had a small Epiphany |
|
The Health Insurance Industry needs the Baucus bill. They need new customers and no one would really buy their shitty product willingly.
We have to remember how we got to where we got with Health Insurance coverage. There were wage limitations imposed by the Federal Government due to the scarce labor supply during World War 2. Offering Health Insurance allowed companies to compete for workers.
We are in a different economy than in 1941-1945 when this system started. Currently employers are cutting their health plans. The trend is for less employers to cover health insurance for employees. Not to mention the effect a 10% unemployment rate must be having on their bottom line. Remember they get paid per employee. There are less employees right now.
Children are covered by S-Chip. So purchasing a private plan to cover your family to protect your children isn't a necessity.
Alot of people are willing to take the risk than to turn over 20% of their salary to an insurance company in the event they might get sick.
A well run public option would literally kill these companies. A federal mandate where they have broad lattitude in what they charge and cover will ensure their survial. Current trends ensure their eventual downfall.
Baucus's bill is a bill that allows them to survive and grow. Without Baucus's bill the industry will start to decline.
|
maglatinavi
(614 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:13 AM
Response to Original message |
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:19 AM
Response to Original message |
2. or thats what they think. |
|
Of course, if their rates and services were reasonable, businesses would NOT continue to ditch them for their employees, and people would be able to afford them. They might have to learn to compete. Oh my! Imagine that!
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:32 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Let me challenge one point you make. |
|
Are we in a different economy than 1941-1945? Then we were in a 2 front war, now we are in a 2 front war. Then the war(s) were the major expense in the economy, now they are the major expense in our economy.
|
JackintheGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
we may be in a 2 front war, but the conflict is not producing industrial jobs in the same way. It is not siphoning off tens of thousands of able bodies workers. It is not drawing quotidian resources from the general population (requiring meat rationin, victory gardens, scrap metal drives, etc.)
The two aren't comparable at all.
|
DCKit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 08:57 AM
Response to Original message |
5. It's been a life or death struggle from the beginning. |
|
It's either the insurance companies or us. I would prefer it be we, teh peoples, who survive the battle.
Besides, it would finally put to rest the myth of the immortal corporation. It'd be worth it just for that - to put the fear of Dog into the rest of those parasites.
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-17-09 09:09 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Their profits have never been better. They just want more. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:55 AM
Response to Original message |