Sen. Grassley says its unfair for the government to compete against private insurers.

[pnwmom]

(That argument would eliminate Medicare for the elderly, too, of course.)

My argument against him is that it's unfair for anyone to make a profit off the suffering of others.

What do you say to people who use the "unfair" argument?

[PDJane]

1. That it's unfair to:

- allow people to die because the insurer won't pay for the condition or the necessary treatment.
- deny people health insurance when they need it most, like when they've lost their job for a health condition.
- ensure that co-pays are so high and lifetime limits so low that people end up bankrupt paying for a health condition when they have health inusrance.
- deny children and the elderly health care because the caregiver is making minimum wage

I also point out that one is less likely to die in a non-profit hospital and that the reason that malpractice awards are so large stateside is that, after a malpractice suit, the patient can't get insurace. Those large awards pay for lifetime care, and even then they often aren't large enough.

Single payer insurance is cheaper, well run, and covers necessary procedures.

[Gman]

2. Medicine should never have become a competitive enterprise in the first place

The day a share of stock in a health care company was allowed to be sold is the day the wheels came off.

[MarjorieG]

3. Let's use the Sicko audioclip of Nixon saying Kaiser onto something, getting paid but not

having to provide service. The beginning of HMOs. I found it devastating.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Uh... Grassley.... You REALLY don't wanna get into a "fairness" argument here.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Just get it over with and outlaw writting medical insurance

They exclude (send off to die) millions of americans every day

[elleng]

6. Its baloney/bologna.

Ain't no argument; we the people have no obligation to measure everything we do by such a foolish 'standard.'

So, School Lunches are unfair;

So, public transit is unfair;

Public hospitals are unfair;

Pubic education is unfair;

etc etc etc.

[Salviati]

7. I'd tell them that I want nothing to do with their ideological ivory tower argument

What matters is what works and what doesn't. If they're trying to say that our "system" works, then they're either too stupid to be reasoned with, or lying through their teeth. Dumb or evil, it's their pick.

[imdjh]

8. I'd say that they had their chance.

First off, we need to get rid of the common perception of the "tradition" of health insurance. Health insurance originated as a NON-profit. Not some bullshit version of nonprofit, where there really is a profit, but it's weaseled in some way that it's not officially a profit. It was nonprofit. Henry Kaiser's employee HMO was by definition nonprofit, because he paid the entire "premium" and he paid all the bills. I don't know enough about the other companies to comment, but I'll stand by my claim that health insurance was originally nonprofit.

Second off, we need to get rid of the idea that this system has somehow worked better in the past. It hasn't. Employer based health insurance was better than no health insurance for anyone, but it never provided universal coverage or anywhere near universal coverage. Before mandatory emergency room acceptance, before Medicare, before medicaid, people went without. People died because they were poor. People died because they didn't want to impoverish their survivors. Yes, some charity hospitals existed but your average uninsured person went without.

The health insurance companies have seen the writing on the wall for a long time now, which is why they have been gouging us so badly for so long. Unlucky for them that they have been putting their money in the stock market and rolling the dice just about the time they are about to be put out of business, well, I can dream.

Hell no they won't be put out of business. The new universal coverage will be a travesty. it has to be. The insurance companies, the doctors, the medical corporations, and the Republicans have promised us that universal healthcare was going to be more expensive than what we now have ( and what they have begrudged us all along) and they will do their very best to see that that happens, if it bankrupts the country.

Which is why we have to stop them. We have to demand National Single Payor. If it's possible for those insurance companies to somehow become admin vendors without adding to the expense of the program, then so be it. Surely they are smart enough to figure this out, after all they get paid a lot of money and get to ride in private jets.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Why not get rid of the tradition

of multiple providers of malpractice insurance, too, while we're at it?

Instead of a system that takes years to make injured people whole, enriches lawyers, ties up the court system, and ultimately leads to secret settlements that let doctors and hospitals kick malpractice under the rug, why not have some form of "workers comp" board to decide on these sorts of cases, and use the new medical recordskeeping system to see if doctors followed the standard of care?

We might start with people whose bills are being paid by the government, I can see a system where doctors who take only Medicare and Medicaid patients might never have to pay a malpractice premium. I'd bet it would change the way they practice expensive defensive medicine, too.

[imdjh]

18. Good idea.

As someone else here said, with NSP the medical portion of a malpractice suit would be a nonissue, so the damages would be lower and reflect actual damages rather than potential medical care. It also means that if the patient dies, then that portion of the reward stops. I know it sounds elitist, and i have never been on such a jury, but from the outside looking in it doesn't seem to make sense to have juries deciding cases that they simply aren't qualified to decide and perhaps making awards based on emotions or a perception of deep pockets rather than a cold and heartless look at what actually happened, what couldn't be avoided, and even the patient's role in his own misery.

[JDPriestly]

14. How right you are. Blue Cross/Blue Shield used to be a non-profit.

Hospitals used to be run as non-profits.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[liberalhistorian]

9. Then tell the clueless, elitist fucker to give up his cushy

federal health care plan paid for by the very taxpayers he condemns to the insurers screwing them or who often don't have insurance themselves, and try to go with one of those oh-so-wonderful private insurers. Yeah, right, like that'll happen. Hypocritical motherfucker. He's supposed to represent US not the fucking insurance companies that are killing us.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Hypocrite

Chuck...when you give up your socialized medical insurance, then I'll take your comments seriously. How much $ are the insurance companies paying you to be an unconscionable prick?

[hunter]

12. You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? ...

I believe in a corporate death penalty. If the health insurance industry resists nationalization and incorporation into a single payer plan, shoot them.

[defendandprotect]

13. Government does it better . . . better than all of the rest ..... !!!

Grassley has things upside down --- not fair of private profit takers to

steal from government and citizens!

For-profit health care is IMMORAL . . .

[JDPriestly]

15. It's not fair for private companies and their managers to take

money from the public for saving people's lives. The doctors and nurses and hospitals should get the money, not the private companies and their managers, not the shareholders of the companies. We are talking about people's lives. If these companies took reasonable profits, they would have no problem competing. They can't compete because they pay their managers and owners too large a share of their customers' money.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. It's Stupid

It's a stupid statement that has no real substance. It's not "fair"? Says who? What if i think it's fair, and Grassley doesn't? A stand-off?

Grassley's statement has no support structure because it's merely a philosophical position. While i concur with your counterstatement, i think the most direct reply is "Says you!"
GAC