Several times in my employed life, I've been forced to switch health care plans by my employer. A few times it was due to mergers, and a couple of times it wasn't - it just so happened that for whatever financial reasons of their own, my employer at the time decided to eliminate one of the plans they subscribed to, or switch to a new provider. That's the current employer-provided health care system: Which plan you get is not under your control, it's under your employer's control, and they can make you change at their whim. Or, drop coverage (though that's less common, because employers who provide coverage want to keep doing so if they can afford to).
In principle, I don't see why it matters that one of the available plans is the new public option, while the others are the various existing plans employers already have available to them. It's no different than if some new private plan were to start up and become available.
That's also why it's completely fair for the government to offer an option, but only if it's paid for by premium monies - why the caveat? The public option Obama wants would, indeed, only be paid for by premiums, but I see no reason why it would be bad to have it paid for by taxes too, if the result were better health care for everyone.
... because otherwise the government health insurance is subsidized (by the government through taxes) which private health carriers don't have the benefit of. ... and I see no problem with that at all. That, again, is worrying about the health of insurance companies rather than the health of people. From our point of view, who cares what the insurance companies have the benefit of? We only care that good insurance is available for us, and that it doesn't cost too much. Are you saying that it is somehow inherently true that giving a public insurance plan an advantage over for-profit plans makes good health insurance for people less available? I don't get that.
no subject
Several times in my employed life, I've been forced to switch health care plans by my employer. A few times it was due to mergers, and a couple of times it wasn't - it just so happened that for whatever financial reasons of their own, my employer at the time decided to eliminate one of the plans they subscribed to, or switch to a new provider. That's the current employer-provided health care system: Which plan you get is not under your control, it's under your employer's control, and they can make you change at their whim. Or, drop coverage (though that's less common, because employers who provide coverage want to keep doing so if they can afford to).
In principle, I don't see why it matters that one of the available plans is the new public option, while the others are the various existing plans employers already have available to them. It's no different than if some new private plan were to start up and become available.
That's also why it's completely fair for the government to offer an option, but only if it's paid for by premium monies - why the caveat? The public option Obama wants would, indeed, only be paid for by premiums, but I see no reason why it would be bad to have it paid for by taxes too, if the result were better health care for everyone.
... because otherwise the government health insurance is subsidized (by the government through taxes) which private health carriers don't have the benefit of. ... and I see no problem with that at all. That, again, is worrying about the health of insurance companies rather than the health of people. From our point of view, who cares what the insurance companies have the benefit of? We only care that good insurance is available for us, and that it doesn't cost too much. Are you saying that it is somehow inherently true that giving a public insurance plan an advantage over for-profit plans makes good health insurance for people less available? I don't get that.