1. “So there is no competion with 1500 insurance companies but 1501 there would be?”

Yes. That 1500 # is misleading for the reason I mentioned above: “94% had commercial markets that were ‘highly concentrated’ by standards set by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Dept.” Mind you, these are the words of the American Medical Association! (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/03/09/bis...)

For example, they found that in “Alabama, the biggest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, controls 83 percent of the statewide market. There, and in nine other states – Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa – the two largest health insurers control at least 80 percent of the market.” (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...)
Much of this is due to the increased consolidation (mergers) of insurance companies (meaning that 1500 number can be reduced to a much smaller number of parent companies), so much so that a former top Federal Trade Commission official is requesting the Justice Department's Antitrust Division investigate the matter!

So, the current market realities are plainly failing to produce competition because consumers don’t have 1500 choices, they often have 1 or 2 (says the AMA). So, introducing a 3rd option everywhere that is more affordable, does not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and is not tied to a job, will absolutely provide competition! This is why the insurance companies are so afraid.

2. So when you say, “do you want [health care] ratiioned by the markets or the pols? The market is my preferance as a Christian,” I am truly alarmed:

An ideological commitment to “the market” has nothing to do with biblical mores. If something as sacred as the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, then surely the market does not deserve unswerving loyalty. It must be evaluated for its practical value to produce good results for people. As just noted, it is simply not producing good results by itself in the realm of access to health care. Hence the public option: it would directly increase access to those who have zero (the opposite of rationing) while forcing companies to be more competitive (and so give greater access, less rationing). As I said before, I would trust a non-profit entity over a for-profit entity with my health care insurance (even if that is the government), given how the for-profit entities have behaved. (http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/blog/entry...)

3. “Under the Kennedy plan my insurance would not meet the guidelines and would go away.”

I’m sorry, but can you produce a quote from the text of the bill that says as much? I’m not trying to be picky here, but I am unaware of any stipulation that would force certain insurance plans to “go away” for not meeting certain “guidelines.” That’s a pretty big claim.

(And which Kennedy plan are you referring to? The one produced a few days ago by the HELP Committee or his original one from a while ago?).

4. “As far as covering 95% of the uninsured I doudt that when 20% are illegal ailens which none of the proposed plans cover.”

The recent HELP Committee bill would ensure 20 million by 2019 and expand Medicare to cover 20 million more people. That’s 40 million out of 45 million uninsured. So, the bill would actually provide coverage to 89% of the uninsured. The 95% number actually refers to the % of the total population that would then be insured (my bad). If we’re only talking about those who are here legally, then the number actually goes up to 97%. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/ar...).

Imposing a new tax on working people in the form of taxing their health benefits is NOT acceptable. How would the government define “better benefits?” And it's most likely that the tax will keep on expanding until it includes “all employer-paid benefits.” One big reason I voted for Obama and not for McCain was McCains' advocacy of this new tax. I'm glad to see that Obama still opposed this new tax. I'm sorry to see many “progressives” starting to embrace this idea of this new tax.

Employer-paid health insurance plans do NOT encourage “wasteful spending.” I don't know who came up with that idea or what statistics they twisted (if they even attempted to come up with statistics). I'm in an employer-provided health care plan. Each year, the premiums go up and up and each year, the benefits get cut back with higher co-pays and higher deductibles.

Myself, I'd much rather fund any health care reforms with money saved from not engaging in wasteful military expenses gotten from the U.S. trying to be the Morality Thought Police of the world. Which of course adds tons of health care expenses when soldiers are wounded.

So there is no competion with 1500 insurance companies but 1501 there would be? Giving the pols power over our healthcare is just bad for most Americans. Remember the “better benefits tax” would not effect those under a collective bargaining contract.

The pols have caused the problem getting them out of the way not more into it is how to solve it. Remember they want power, they do not care about you or me.

As far as covering 95% of the uninsured I doudt that when 20% are illegal ailens which none of the proposed plans cover.

Under the Kennedy plan my insurance would not meet the guidelines and would go away. So much for everyone being able to keep what they like now.

Yes, healthcare is rationed, the question is do you want it ratiioned by the markets or the pols? The market is my preferance as a Christian.

94% of the country's insurance markets are “highly concentrated” right now, as noted by the American Medical Association, so the practical result of ending up with only government insurance could hardly be worse than what we have now, since the sole provider would be a non-profit insurer instead of the for-profit insurers that already ration care and price gauge because they lack competition.

And at a moral level, should we be more concerned about protecting companies who have come between people and the health care they need, or should we be more concerned with making sure all or most people have access to health care?

2. That’s interesting about a private company administering state Medicare. Is that what is being proposed with the federal public option? (I honestly haven’t heard anything to that effect). But doesn’t your example show that public-private cooperation is effective after all? And doesn’t that mean that the private companies wouldn’t go out of business since they’d be administering insurance for as much as 45 million new customers?

3. The president does not want to tax benefits, but many economists do because they feel it encourages wasteful use of health care services, driving prices up. Besides, as you put it, this would only be on those with “better benefits” (i.e., not those who can least afford it, as I put it). To me that is more than acceptable.

As far as price tag is concerned, the HELP Committee came out with a new bill a few days ago that would cover 95% of the uninsured with a public option and only costs $600 billion, topping off at $1 trillion once the Finance Committee adds in their costs. Again, that is over 10 years.

The policy that I bought for my family cost a little over $600 for my family of 4. I can afford that since I drive a Saturn and not a Lexis.

The public option will drive private insurers out of business because of governments heavy hand forcing doctors and hospitals take less, leaving them to make up the difference from the private insurance sector.

You say they should be mandated to cover everyone but should I not be rewarded for my health lifestyle? Should car insurance be the same way with bad drivers paying the same rates as good ones?

Insurance varies from state to state. Here in RI, we only had two choices, Blue Cross and United, until recently. Now Tufts has been approved by the DBR to offer insurance.
However, the rates of the three seem to be very similar.

To me, a public option might serve to level the playing field a bit. As it is now, the big guys have all of the advantages.

JB

2. Yes Medicare pays doctors a lot less than do private insurance, they would also do the same with the public option. But who in your state administers Medicare, in my state, Tennessee, BCBS has been doing this since the 1960's. That is your administrative savings having the paper work done by a flexible private work force.

3. Let's not forget the taxing of healthcare benefits for some with better benefits than others, as long as you are not in a union. The CBO estimates are over 1.6 trillion over 10 years and they are always light.

Think about it if you have a product that you are selling and the supply is fixed(doctors, nurses, hospitals, ect) and demand increases (free care) will the price go up or down.

We are certainly in agreement on the lobbyist. I believe lobbyist is synonmous with bribe.

The problem today is that big corporations have limited competition and end up too big to fail.

I personally think the big banks with mortgage problems should have been allowed to fail and the

home owner mortgages assigned to local banks via govt insurance at a fair market fixed rate. Bush

of course needed to bail out his buddies and it wasnt stopped in the current environment.

I personally bank at a local bank that has three branches. The VP at my branch knows my

first name and so do most of the tellers without seeing my deposit slip.

I sold my business ten years ago I had thirty employees and 10M in sales.

My health insurance was 120 per month, 750 deductible, 80/20 to 5K and then 100%

Today it is 480 per month, 1500 deductible, 80/20 and then 100%

The number of insurance companies in my state has shrunk by over 50 % in the last 15 years

and four companies dominate the market. There is no competition anymore and someone

with the least bit of medical issues cannot buy insurance on their own. Small business

can no longer afford it either.

United Health Care is located where I live. They paid millions per year to Bill McGuire. He's the

CEO who got caught backdating stock options . They then gave him a 16 billion, yes billion with

a B, golden parachute. The largest severance in American history. All of these people sit on each

others boards and pad each others ______. We the people need to force our elected officials

to step in and clean up the mess. Stock options of course have much more favorable tax treatment

than income. And I am supposed to want to buy stock in these companies? I liquidated half of my

portfolio in Sept of 2007 and the second half in Jan of 2008.

The basic pure simple fact still remains that the rest of the world does a much better job and spends

a whole lot less. In the last year I have had the opportunity to have personal one on one conversations

in the course of my employmentwith five different people from four different countries about health care.

These were above average income people as they were visiting here. They were not students. All five told me that what we

are being told by our media about their health care is somewhere between gross distortion and pure lies.

And now this one really hurts. They also commented that they would not even consider trading their

citizenship for ours and the number one but not the only reason was health care, followed by education.

When it comes to health care the free market needs at a minimum, some public competition. It is

definitely broken. Govt has the responsibility to be the policeman. You and I are the ones who

need to kick the lobbyists out. I agree there are lobbyists for all sides and as long as this situation

exists I favor the ones who are on the side of the middle class. I am well within the top 10 % of net

worth in the country, probably even 6-7 % The problem is that the distance between me and the bottom

ten percent is a couple mil. Then difference between me and the top two percent is 500 million and into the

billions. This is not what made this country great.

WE as citizens have the ability to hold the govt accountable and we have been extremely negligent in

out duties. As a society we have unhook ourselves from Michael Jackson, big league sports, and computer

games and start growing up and being responsible for both ourselves and our country and our society.

You want to start a movement to kick the lobbyists out?

As for government, you must have the belief that government does mostly good, with a few exceptions. I happen to believe the opposite, and there's little proof that government methods are better than open market methods. As for the big business stuff, big businesses are not pro free markets, they are oftentimes protectionist and lobby on their own behalf. If Barack Obama really did kick out all the lobbyists in Washington, our country would be 100% better in a month's time. I'd probably even vote for him next election if he truly accomplished that (your campaign comment would help, too!). But he won't, because he is just like every other politician, and caters to his special interest groups.

We both believe in rule of law. Capitalism is “checked” internally, as well as by rule of law. If government is the morality check on corporations, we've got plenty of problems. Funny thing is, if you really think about it, we should be thanking capitalism for bringing to light our current economic crisis. Just like our body, when toxic things are placed into it, it spews it out. That is what is happening now. It's a testimony that the market clears out greedy investors and people who want to buy more than they can afford (which is another form of greed). Government didn't bring to light our current crisis; those who believed in a free market knew this was coming (read Ron Paul's writings and congressional statements anywhere from 2-10 years ago).

Anyway, that's a bit off topic…

I havent seen any greedy corrupt corporations go out of business. Im not in

disagreement that there are too many govt programs and unfortunately many

outlive their purpose. However, I do believe that govt should be the morality

check on corporations. If not govt, then who? The faith community is entirely

too busy with fun, food, and fellowship.

I was a small business owner for my career. Yes, if corrupt and too greedy I would

have gone out of business. In theory it works. However, today we have allowed

business to get way too big and competition has been limited and they have way

too much power and influesnce. This has happened before. Teddy Roosevelt the

trust buster brought it too an end.

The absolute problem , I believe is how we finance political campaigns. This is the

change that could solve a multitude of problems. Each party gets the same amoung per

race and allow some type of provision for a third party.