Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dlk

(11,438 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:52 PM Jul 2019

Outlawing Health Insurance Companies is a Losing Argument

Granted, they have abused our capitalist system. However, too many voters would be concerned that other types of businesses may be outlawed. There are a myriad of ways to get to full health coverage for all Americans and certainly increasing sensible regulations over the insurers makes more sense. I’m afraid Vowing to outlaw the health insurance companies would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Outlawing Health Insurance Companies is a Losing Argument (Original Post) dlk Jul 2019 OP
Slowly driving them out of business is better... ProudMNDemocrat Jul 2019 #1
Agreed-It Accomplishes the Same Result Minus the Backlash dlk Jul 2019 #3
+1, uponit7771 Jul 2019 #15
I think planning a long transition would be better. Ilsa Jul 2019 #18
Yes. ooky Jul 2019 #33
But they can be better regulated. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #2
The Laissez-Faire Approach Needs to Go & the Federal Government Needs to Step Up dlk Jul 2019 #6
I think you're absolutely right! Greed has made a come back in rump's admin. Plain ol' ugly ... SWBTATTReg Jul 2019 #12
I think Turin_C3PO Jul 2019 #4
No one is arguing outlawing them. We're arguing that they shouldn't be able to make obscene profits onecaliberal Jul 2019 #5
Bernie is dansolo Jul 2019 #16
Kamala supports Medicare for all, but not banning private insurance. onecaliberal Jul 2019 #35
I would suggest reading the current Senate Plan for Medicare for All Docreed2003 Jul 2019 #34
It a losing argument period. nycbos Jul 2019 #7
Even with Medicare as it exists now, you almost have to have a supplemental policy The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #11
Reading AARP, which hasn't weighed in on a plan, seems Medicare would provide full coverage, emmaverybo Jul 2019 #30
Absolutely Thyla Jul 2019 #23
That's especially the case customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #8
So, the unions negotiate for Bettie Jul 2019 #13
Not if that is outlawed customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #17
I can't see any situation where Bettie Jul 2019 #20
I agree customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #26
Maybe the union members could negotiate a huge raise if Meadowoak Jul 2019 #14
The provision of health insurance customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #19
If I was still in a union, I would trade that blue cross card for Meadowoak Jul 2019 #22
I understand where you're coming from customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #25
I think that we should create a public health system option that people can choose Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #9
Then you don't support Bernie's plan dansolo Jul 2019 #21
That doesn't look like all private insurance is prohibited, just any that offers the same benefits The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #27
They can always sell supplemental insurance, area51 Jul 2019 #10
I tend to agree with you. It's amazing the number of people who claim to love their private Vinca Jul 2019 #24
I rely on BCBS to cover what Medicare doesn't... LiberalArkie Jul 2019 #28
Bad idea to start with... BlueJac Jul 2019 #29
Disagree. democratisphere Jul 2019 #31
I'm against the abolition of private insurance via legislation, but for a public option that gives Celerity Jul 2019 #32
From my twitter feed Gothmog Jul 2019 #36
Outlawing Planned Parenthood is a Losing Argument LanternWaste Jul 2019 #37

ProudMNDemocrat

(16,485 posts)
1. Slowly driving them out of business is better...
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:55 PM
Jul 2019

By providing Americans with an option plan to buy into Medicare or a Single Payer plan that will ultimately over time, stifle the profits to the major Health Insurers, causing them to either bow to the will of the American people or die slowly from suffocation.

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
18. I think planning a long transition would be better.
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:21 PM
Jul 2019

Let the insurance companies and employers make gradual transitions from regular policies to supplementals. Employers can save money moving anyone 55 and over to Medicare (new age to qualify). This makes keeping an older workforce a little more desirable.

ooky

(8,889 posts)
33. Yes.
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:19 PM
Jul 2019

Our immediate focus needs to be on those who don't have affordable access now. There is no need to go after everyone at this time. My preference would be for the House to pass a bill now that addresses that aspect now, in the form of an ACA rescue/improvement plan, that all dems candidates campaign on for 2020. I think it's important we get something tangible and concrete on the table now that all voters can understand, and I believe most of the 2018 voters who voted us to the House majority are fully expecting us to do this anyway. That could also provide a public option, which should be particularly appealing to voters in states that didn't expand Medicaid or across the country for voters who's employer insurance isn't all that great. And we need to make sure we communicate to the public it's all optional and that nobody is going to be forced off of anything they already like. Then people will start to move over to government health care options at their own pace as they begin to realize what they are being offered is indeed better and more affordable than what they already have.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
2. But they can be better regulated.
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:56 PM
Jul 2019

Regulation of insurance companies is left almost entirely to the states - federal regulation is pretty minimal. Until the ACA was passed there was very little federal regulation of health insurance at all.

dlk

(11,438 posts)
6. The Laissez-Faire Approach Needs to Go & the Federal Government Needs to Step Up
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:00 PM
Jul 2019

When left to their own devices, corporations often misbehave. Greed is too powerful a motivator.

SWBTATTReg

(21,859 posts)
12. I think you're absolutely right! Greed has made a come back in rump's admin. Plain ol' ugly ...
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:07 PM
Jul 2019

greed and predatory capitalism. I can't wait until rump and cronies are nailed to the wall for numerous crimes, financial and otherwise. Take care.

Turin_C3PO

(13,650 posts)
4. I think
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:59 PM
Jul 2019

our candidates will step back from outlawing private insurance. You can leave it as an option and still make Medicare available to all. The hope would be that people would see that Medicare is better and, slowly, we wouldn’t need private insurance companies except for optional procedures.

onecaliberal

(32,489 posts)
5. No one is arguing outlawing them. We're arguing that they shouldn't be able to make obscene profits
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 12:59 PM
Jul 2019

At the expense of the system or you know, actual healthcare.

dansolo

(5,376 posts)
16. Bernie is
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:18 PM
Jul 2019

Along with anyone supporting his Medicare for All bill. It explicitly outlaws private health insurance.

Docreed2003

(16,817 posts)
34. I would suggest reading the current Senate Plan for Medicare for All
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:25 PM
Jul 2019

It very clearly outlaws private insurance.

nycbos

(6,033 posts)
7. It a losing argument period.
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:00 PM
Jul 2019

Every country that has universal healthcare as a right also has private health insurance companies. People in these nations use private healthcare as supplemental benefits.

If tomorrow you can wave a magic wand and have a "medicare for all system" and enshrine healthcare as a right we would still have a system where private care is used to supplement the national plan.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
11. Even with Medicare as it exists now, you almost have to have a supplemental policy
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:06 PM
Jul 2019

because Medicare doesn't cover everything. Have any of the proponents of Medicare for All offered details of what that plan would cover? If it's like the current Medicare there will be a lot of copays and things that aren't covered (and you have to pay for Part B anyhow), so supplemental policies would be necessary. If the plan is to cover absolutely everything with no copays, deductibles or premium payments so no supplemental insurance would be needed, how will it be paid for? It would be horrifically expensive.

emmaverybo

(8,144 posts)
30. Reading AARP, which hasn't weighed in on a plan, seems Medicare would provide full coverage,
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:08 PM
Jul 2019

and add long-term care, negotiate with drug companies to lower costs, all at substantial tax raise.

I prefer my excellent Medicare supplemental, but it’s not all about me. I do, through state retirement, pay no premium, am reimbursed the fee, and have all I need except long term. Prescriptions cost very, very low.

I wonder if M4All would be as good as Medicaid for low-income people with chronic debilitating illness, disabilities, those needing home care, which includes many children.

Thyla

(791 posts)
23. Absolutely
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:37 PM
Jul 2019

Look at Australia's model to get a good idea, you need private working with the system.
This requires regulation though.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
8. That's especially the case
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:03 PM
Jul 2019

with union people whose representatives have worked hard to get decent benefits for their members and the member's families. The GOP will use this as a tool to divide us, if we hand it to them on a silver platter.

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
13. So, the unions negotiate for
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:10 PM
Jul 2019

supplemental plans, to augment the basic level of health care everyone should have.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
17. Not if that is outlawed
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:19 PM
Jul 2019

Yes, I realize that there is indeed supplemental insurance in most nations that have government-provided healthcare, but what is being talked about is getting rid of private insurance completely.

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
20. I can't see any situation where
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:30 PM
Jul 2019

supplemental insurance would be outlawed.

However, the role of private insurance companies should be significantly curtailed. They make obscene profits and their primary function is to deny care wherever/whenever possible, to increase their already obscene profits.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
26. I agree
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:50 PM
Jul 2019

but the solution is something other than destruction, at least with insurance. Now, Big Pharma, on the other hand, is practically begging to be nationalized.

Meadowoak

(5,517 posts)
14. Maybe the union members could negotiate a huge raise if
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:12 PM
Jul 2019

Their employer was no longer on the hook for health insurance.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
19. The provision of health insurance
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:25 PM
Jul 2019

is not simply a financial transaction for most employers. It's about removing worry from their workers, making them more effective at doing their jobs. It's about being able to have their employees BE preferred patients with healthcare providers so that the workers can get better sooner, and back on the job.

It's about providing a safety net for a rainy day, instead of just handing over money that might not be wisely saved for that eventuality. Paternalistic, yes, but if it means low premiums, low co-pays and deductibles, high or no benefit caps, and access to the best doctors and hospitals, most union workers are OK with that.

Meadowoak

(5,517 posts)
22. If I was still in a union, I would trade that blue cross card for
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:36 PM
Jul 2019

Medicare and maybe a monthly 401k contribution in a heartbeat.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
25. I understand where you're coming from
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:49 PM
Jul 2019

I'm retired now, and when I was working in my last job, which was union, I took the high-deductible policy and the $900 a year into my Health Savings Account, which I maxed with my own contributions. But, most people I worked with either wouldn't or couldn't sock it away like I could. I also put 20% of my pay into the 401K, only 3% got matched.

At union meetings, I would hear the blue-collar workers carp about how they weren't getting enough overtime to be able to pay for the toys they liked to buy. Conversations with fellow white-collar workers showed that they weren't great savers, either. Many were amazed when I decided to retire after only eight years on the job.

Now, my circumstances were surely exceptional. I came to the East Coast to live with my lady, and once I got a job at a decent wage, she kept my part of the household financial contribution down, as long as I did the food shopping, the cooking, the dishes and the laundry. Hey, it was no more hassle than doing it just for myself! Also, I was expected to save diligently for the retirement that both of us are now enjoying.

But as I said, most of my fellow workers were either unable or unwilling to look out for their futures in this way. They liked being able to pay tiny deductables and co-pays that meant only skipping a night out on the town. They wanted the Cadillac coverage that our union negotiated, and the union representatives prioritized that, as they should have in bargaining for the desires of a majority of the membership. The company was OK with that, they had workers, who while they had gripes about their jobs (who doesn't?) would not leave, because they couldn't get the kind of base pay and benefits that we got anywhere else.

Of course, I'm generalizing to say that the folks I worked with are typical of union workers across the US, but in the 1980's, I was a tax accountant in the area north of Seattle, and the union Boeing workers had pretty much the same opinions.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
9. I think that we should create a public health system option that people can choose
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:04 PM
Jul 2019

if people want to keep their private health insurance or have a supplemental policy, they should be allowed to do it.

dansolo

(5,376 posts)
21. Then you don't support Bernie's plan
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:31 PM
Jul 2019

He explicitly outlaws any private insurance options.

SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
27. That doesn't look like all private insurance is prohibited, just any that offers the same benefits
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:53 PM
Jul 2019

as the public MFA plan. So private insurance that covers anything that MFA doesn't cover would be allowed, just like the Medicare supplements you can buy now.

area51

(11,868 posts)
10. They can always sell supplemental insurance,
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:04 PM
Jul 2019

not to mention, they can also branch out into other insurance like home, car, etc.

Our govt. is extremely reluctant to regulate these agencies; please take a look at articles on PNHP, the physicians' group, on why half-measures won't get us to lower prices or full coverage.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
24. I tend to agree with you. It's amazing the number of people who claim to love their private
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:39 PM
Jul 2019

insurance even when they can't afford the co-pays and avoid the emergency room when they should go. Dems should promote basic healthcare coverage as a right and allowing private companies to sell supplemental policies. I don't know what supplemental policies might cover, but I know everyone deserves access to wellness care and treatment when they're ill no questions asked. I also think drugs that are necessary to life - like insulin - should be free.

democratisphere

(17,235 posts)
31. Disagree.
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:09 PM
Jul 2019

The white coat and white collar criminals must be put out of business in order for American Healthcare to survive. Single payer with heavy price controls is the only way forward.

Celerity

(42,670 posts)
32. I'm against the abolition of private insurance via legislation, but for a public option that gives
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 02:11 PM
Jul 2019

the choice to the individual. It MIGHT lead to the vast reduction of people utilising the private arena for their main healthcare needs, but that is not a fait accompli.

That all said, there is very little chance that we will even get the public option passed. Due to decades of RW gerrymandering, voter suppression, and propaganda, the electoral districting and overall structural landscape (at US House and state assembly level) have been tilted to a much further RW milieu than is proportional to the actual distribution at broad overall population levels.

Look at our current Democratic caucus. It is composed of around half of very moderate centrists (New Democrat Coalition, Blue Dogs, and Problem Solvers, etc), some (such as the 20-odd strong No Label/Problem Solvers group) bordering on what would be considered 'Rockefeller Republican-lite' types back a couple decades ago (when talking in terms of economic stances.)

There is very, very little chance we are going to able to drag enough of those centrists over in numbers sufficient to pass a truly massive structural change like a public option, let alone the Medicare for All complete takeover. They are in purple, pink and even outright red districts. They will be terrified of losing their seats over voting for something that is already pre-cooked (false as it may be) to be labelled as pure, outright socialism. The public option will be attacked in such a manner, in multivariate attacks that will be far from a Rethug-only thing (see my next paragraph.) Other centrists/moderates will simply, regardless of any electoral fears, be utterly against it as well for a variety of other reasons and rationales.

Furthermore, the vast lobbying power of big insurance, big healthcare (doctors and hospitals), and big pharma will spend hundreds of millions to defeat the public option. They already have done this successfully during the Obamacare debate and have outright vowed they will do it again. Many of these lobbies and Super-Pacs are massive power players in terms of fundraising for our party, including with some of our POTUS candidates.

I am really pessimistic that even if we defeat Rump, hold the House with 230, 240, to even increase to 250 or so in our caucus, and also take back the Senate with a 51 or 52 seat caucus, that the public option will sail through and be signed by our new Democratic POTUS.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
37. Outlawing Planned Parenthood is a Losing Argument
Mon Jul 1, 2019, 03:33 PM
Jul 2019

Yet, for a losing argument, it certainly has traction, a huge voting base, effective legislation, and a large donor base.



All things being equal, it takes is a year or two of effective commercial branding to compel the American people to think what we otherwise would. For the most part, we're shallow enough for that to work. Every time.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Outlawing Health Insuranc...