5) A new regulation in the plan is to have a government agency review *private* health insurance plans. If the government agency doesn't think that the health insurance plan is good, it can deny the commercial entity the right to offer that health insurance plan. Again, it's unclear whether or not the government health insurance would have to be reviewed by the same agency, but even if it is, it might be fast-tracked with things overlooked because it's the government.
6) The government has resources that insurance companies don't. We could get messages about the federal insurance program sent to us with our census forms, tax information, voter information, etc. In essence, the government has the largest list of possible leads to market health insurance to, including lots of private information (like phone numbers, including those on the "do not call" list, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses). And they have that information already, even before a plan is formed. (I agree that this is unfair, though I doubt that the government will spam us).
7) Medicare currently is allowed to reimburse less money to the doctors and hospitals than any private insurer has been able to negotiate. This would be extended to the government health insurance plan. It is arguable as to whether that is unfair or not; but it helps catapult the government plan towards being a monopoly. And in any case, if the government decides to "negotiate" even lower, there could be a perception that the doctor/hospital has to accept that, because the government is way more powerful than them. (akin to if your landlord raises your rent, or your mortgage company raises your fees or interest rate -- you accept it until a certain pain point, because they are providing you a service and have power over you. And it's hard to deny that the government is perceived as more powerful than any one insurance company....especially if it does end up being a monopoly).
8) Even though the government health plan is self-funded by premiums, it will lose money in the first few years. That money has to come from *somewhere* -- and it will come from the taxpayer (just like if you started your own business, your private bank account covers more losses once the corporate account gets to 0). The government could charge less than the actual cost of a premium *should* be, undercutting everyone, and having the taxpayer pay the difference anyway....basically the government could lie about how much a premium should be, and cover the loss with taxpayer money.
So...after reading this....while there are *some* valid points that a government-run health insurance option is unfair, I believe those are minor points. However, *if* the government manages, in a fair manner, to drive private insurance companies out of business (which is the argument that most people are making in this post + comments as to *why* the insurance companies are saying it's unfair - because a cheaper option means less profits for them), *then* the government will be a monopoly, and *then* there is definite potential for unfairness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2009-09-11 20:32 (UTC)6) The government has resources that insurance companies don't. We could get messages about the federal insurance program sent to us with our census forms, tax information, voter information, etc. In essence, the government has the largest list of possible leads to market health insurance to, including lots of private information (like phone numbers, including those on the "do not call" list, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses). And they have that information already, even before a plan is formed. (I agree that this is unfair, though I doubt that the government will spam us).
7) Medicare currently is allowed to reimburse less money to the doctors and hospitals than any private insurer has been able to negotiate. This would be extended to the government health insurance plan. It is arguable as to whether that is unfair or not; but it helps catapult the government plan towards being a monopoly. And in any case, if the government decides to "negotiate" even lower, there could be a perception that the doctor/hospital has to accept that, because the government is way more powerful than them. (akin to if your landlord raises your rent, or your mortgage company raises your fees or interest rate -- you accept it until a certain pain point, because they are providing you a service and have power over you. And it's hard to deny that the government is perceived as more powerful than any one insurance company....especially if it does end up being a monopoly).
8) Even though the government health plan is self-funded by premiums, it will lose money in the first few years. That money has to come from *somewhere* -- and it will come from the taxpayer (just like if you started your own business, your private bank account covers more losses once the corporate account gets to 0). The government could charge less than the actual cost of a premium *should* be, undercutting everyone, and having the taxpayer pay the difference anyway....basically the government could lie about how much a premium should be, and cover the loss with taxpayer money.
So...after reading this....while there are *some* valid points that a government-run health insurance option is unfair, I believe those are minor points. However, *if* the government manages, in a fair manner, to drive private insurance companies out of business (which is the argument that most people are making in this post + comments as to *why* the insurance companies are saying it's unfair - because a cheaper option means less profits for them), *then* the government will be a monopoly, and *then* there is definite potential for unfairness.