Well, there's 2 components of the healthcare debate: (A.) Escalating costs.
(B.) The finance mechanism. "single payer" is a finance mechanism which, if you don't control escalating costs is relevant. Said differently, if I owe my doctor $1M for medical treatment it doesn't matter if he sends the bill to me or to you - neither of us can afford it. That is the core problem with healthcare - it doesn't matter if we shift all costs the taxpayer via single payer because none of us can afford it if we don't start controlling costs. To your point, if we keep the status quo insurance companies can't make money charging a $500,000 yearly premium. That business model doesn't work. They can't "make a buck" if costs aren't controlled. Thus anybody that wants universal healthcare shouldn't give 2 shiits about the finance mechanism (single payer, double payer, 1/2 payer, full payer) cause without controlling costs no payer can pay. If you turn control over to the government via single-payer, well then government has an easy way to control costs: "nothing prepared him for the shock of learning that Arizona's Medicaid<https://www.cms.gov/home/medicaid.asp>program was eliminating transplant coverage for people with his condition." http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health_Care/medicaid-cuts-make-organ-transplants-unaffordable/story?id=12177059 And so there's really only one solution to both lower costs and keep control: fully privatize healthcare. (1.) Put purchasing power for insurance into the hands of people instead of employers (2.) Eliminate the anti-trust exclusion for insurance companies (3.) Eliminate the group plan exclusion so that anybody can form a risk-pool and buy insurance: your book club, your company, this list. costs drop, you keep control, and taxpayers can now afford to cover those that can't afford it themselves. Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I would disagree that the right wants to take it out of the hands of > insurance companies. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that. > Remember their hemming and hawing about how the public option would create > unfair competition for the insurance companies. Sounds like they were more > interested in making sure the insurance companies were able to make a buck. > deness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of > wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:334753 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
