I have read the rest of this thread and I didn't see a clear answer to this.
The answer is that the complaint is wrong, because a government option wouldn't provide "unfair competition." Like the commercial health insurance companies, the government's health insurance program would be self-funded (as in, funded by premiums). So the question is, what exactly is unfair about the government adding to the competition?
The only thing I can think of that's unfair is "another provider will be charging less than we do, stealing all our business." But that's only a valid argument if the government health insurance wasn't 100% funded by premiums -- ie, if tax money was going to the insurance payouts. Companies self-fund their insurance using premium monies, so it would be unfair if the government funded its insurance using monies that regular companies can't get (like tax revenue).
1) The government will have the lion's share of the market . . . a) . . . due to insuring people who aren't currently insured. (solution for commercial entities: make your non-group (ie, not offered through an employer) insurance more affordable and you, too, can insure people who aren't currently insured) b) . . . due to being cheaper than current options. (see a) for the solution). c) . . . and that would lead to the OMG DEMISE of private insurance (they could have made this argument better by saying that the government would have a monopoly -- which *is* unfair (historically, among service providers). Thus, even though the government is "fair competition", it's quite logical to conclude that they're *so* much better that they drive their competition away (again, fairly and legally), that they then become a monopoly (which isn't fair.) )
2) The government isn't a corporation and thus does not need to follow corporate laws. Thus, they get out of things like paying taxes, The article says 'In reality, the "competition" would be rigged, with the government plan enjoying a number of advantages.' but it doesn't say what those advantages are.
If that's really "unfair competition", how come Wal-Mart is still allowed to provide goods at super-cheap prices?
3) The government may or may not need to follow state licensing guidelines for insurance companies. (My first thought was "duh, just look to see if Medicare and Medicaid need to follow state licensing guidelines." But it's not that easy, as each state handles Medicare and Medicaid differently.) Again, this argument could have been made much better if it was changed from "it's unfair because they might not have to follow state licensing guidelines" to "state licensing guidelines exist for your protection -- otherwise insurance companies would never pay out *any* claims. If the government health insurance program doesn't have to follow those same guidelines, those insured by it are at risk."
And then of course, if the government has a monopoly AND doesn't have to follow licensing, the state of health care in the US would get tons worse.
4) Similar to #3, private insurance can be sued with torts, which the government can't. It's unclear whether the government health care insurance program would be able to be sued with torts or not.
no subject
The answer is that the complaint is wrong, because a government option wouldn't provide "unfair competition." Like the commercial health insurance companies, the government's health insurance program would be self-funded (as in, funded by premiums). So the question is, what exactly is unfair about the government adding to the competition?
The only thing I can think of that's unfair is "another provider will be charging less than we do, stealing all our business." But that's only a valid argument if the government health insurance wasn't 100% funded by premiums -- ie, if tax money was going to the insurance payouts. Companies self-fund their insurance using premium monies, so it would be unfair if the government funded its insurance using monies that regular companies can't get (like tax revenue).
But I wasn't satisfied with that, so I did some research: http://www.heritage.org/Research/healthcare/bg2311.cfm makes the argument that government-run health insurance is unfair because:
1) The government will have the lion's share of the market . . .
a) . . . due to insuring people who aren't currently insured. (solution for commercial entities: make your non-group (ie, not offered through an employer) insurance more affordable and you, too, can insure people who aren't currently insured)
b) . . . due to being cheaper than current options. (see a) for the solution).
c) . . . and that would lead to the OMG DEMISE of private insurance (they could have made this argument better by saying that the government would have a monopoly -- which *is* unfair (historically, among service providers). Thus, even though the government is "fair competition", it's quite logical to conclude that they're *so* much better that they drive their competition away (again, fairly and legally), that they then become a monopoly (which isn't fair.) )
2) The government isn't a corporation and thus does not need to follow corporate laws. Thus, they get out of things like paying taxes,
The article says 'In reality, the "competition" would be rigged, with the government plan enjoying a number of advantages.' but it doesn't say what those advantages are.
If that's really "unfair competition", how come Wal-Mart is still allowed to provide goods at super-cheap prices?
3) The government may or may not need to follow state licensing guidelines for insurance companies. (My first thought was "duh, just look to see if Medicare and Medicaid need to follow state licensing guidelines." But it's not that easy, as each state handles Medicare and Medicaid differently.) Again, this argument could have been made much better if it was changed from "it's unfair because they might not have to follow state licensing guidelines" to "state licensing guidelines exist for your protection -- otherwise insurance companies would never pay out *any* claims. If the government health insurance program doesn't have to follow those same guidelines, those insured by it are at risk."
And then of course, if the government has a monopoly AND doesn't have to follow licensing, the state of health care in the US would get tons worse.
4) Similar to #3, private insurance can be sued with torts, which the government can't. It's unclear whether the government health care insurance program would be able to be sued with torts or not.
(continued)