Skip to main content

View Diary: Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Blue Cross) backs insurance companies over humans (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So if eliminating insurer's profits is (0+ / 0-)

    not the right way to go

    then why are the health insurance companies fighting so hard to keep the government from competing against them.  Certainly you can't believe that it's because insurers have the best interest of the public at heart.  No, its clearly an effort to protect their profitability, plain and simple.  They know that a government run (not-for-profit) health insurance would deliver health care to all far more economically than they can.

    I'm all for the profit motive moving business (I own a small business) but I believe the for-profit insurers have amply demonstrated how the insertion of their profit motive between health care providers and their patients limits the extent to which health care is actually provided to all our citizens.

    Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting all other alternatives. - Winston Churchill

    by ovals49 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:14:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What I said is that eliminating the ins. (0+ / 0-)

      companies is not going to happen. And that the fact that they take profits out of the system, by itself, is not a good argument for their elimination. The ins. companies may get smaller, but they are not going to be put into bankruptcy by a president's signature. You know that, right?

      I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

      by doc2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:21:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even if it means Americans cant get affordable (0+ / 0-)

        healthcare ever?

        That is so 1/7 to 1/10th of 1 percent of us can keep insurance industry jobs they often claim to hate?

        People in this nation die due to lack of health care. The estimates vary from 18,000 to 100,000 a year, depending on how you measure preventable deaths

        by Andiamo on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who are you arguing with? We're (0+ / 0-)

          on the same side here. But change won't include the complete wiping out of the health insurance industry. That is not going to happen. Do you think it really will happen or are your comments just wistful musings?

          I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

          by doc2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 01:39:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thats the cover story.. (0+ / 0-)

      Just like the unsurers "unfairness advantage" is being covered up by a story that has the public optin having some kind of advantage over the private plans (who can deny coverage or price it unattainably high to people with illnesses, also, people with illnesses lose their jobs, and therefore their insurance eventually, keeping the employer offered risk pool relatively healthy and avoiding the death spiral so often seen in state-sponsored high risk pools)

      Take my word for it, unsurers LOVE the public option idea because it preserves the levels of profit they want, does not force reform, takes the high risk patients for at least a year or two, gives them a way to kill real reform when it dies, assuming they can confuse the two enough, and does not allow real cost control, ever.

      People in this nation die due to lack of health care. The estimates vary from 18,000 to 100,000 a year, depending on how you measure preventable deaths

      by Andiamo on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:36:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would bail on my for profit in a heartbeat (0+ / 0-)

        if a decent public option were made available to any who wanted it.  Only if the public option is limited to enrolling only those currently uninsured, underinsured or uninsurable would the for-profits be entirely protected.  I would not support such a public option.

        If a public option plan is allowed to compete freely, without legislated handicapping, it would quickly crimp the profits of commercial insurers.  This is why they are fighting an unfettered public option plan so hard, and why congressional recipients of their largess are so eager to limit the public option in so many ways.

        I would still prefer a single payer system, and will work hard to kill any crippled public option plan which might make transitioning to single payer system in the future more difficult.  But if a decent public option plan were to somehow make it through congress I'd be happy to sign on!

        Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting all other alternatives. - Winston Churchill

        by ovals49 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 01:35:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site