General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInsurance Stocks Plunge as Medicare for All Bill Unveiled With Major Support
more at https://truthout.org/articles/insurance-stocks-plunge-as-medicare-for-all-bill-unveiled-with-major-support/
global1
(25,253 posts)the Affordable Care Act when it was being proposed and being voted on.
pecosbob
(7,541 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)that merely regulates private insurance, for the most part. In exchange, it was intended to make many more customers available to the industry through the individual mandate.
Medicare for All envisions ELIMINATING most private health insurance in one fell swoop, a hugely profitable sector of the economy, in which MANY individual and institutional investors are invested.
If you don't expect that will cause disruption in the economy, you are dreaming. Perhaps the disruption will be balanced out by other things ... the total cost of health coverage will go down. But there will be tons of losers as well as winners when these burdens are shifted and a new equilibrium reached.
global1
(25,253 posts)One needs to carry a secondary insurance to cover the costs Medicare doesn't pick up. That secondary insurance coverage is offered by private insurance companies. So there will always be a need for private health insurance. The benefit of MFA is that every American will by right have a basic level of healthcare coverage. Also more standardization in the administration of the plan in terms of standardized forms and less paperwork for providers.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He makes that very explicit. The only room for private insurance will be to cover optional things, things like elective cosmetic surgery. "You want a nose job, you get private insurance."
spinbaby
(15,090 posts)They wouldnt be advertising it so much if it werent highly profitable.
And, even if we get access-for-all health care, there will ALWAYS be doctors and clinics willing to service wealthy patients on demand for a little extra. And insurance companies can make a lot of coin selling policies that allow people to jump the line.
Citizens who take reasonable steps to plan their health care and doctor visits will see their care providers in a timely fashion and be able to adapt to and navigate the system.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)for private insurance companies to offer coverage for ANY service covered under the government plan.
there would only be room for private insurers to cover things like cosmetic surgery NOT covered under the government plan.
That means that if the government plan offers comprehensive coverage, that would be the ONLY option.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)On a scale of things to worry about from 1 to 10, this would be a -3.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)if a MS insurance company wants to contract with MS patients and MS doctors, I'm not sure this would pass constitutional muster -- and that was before the recent stacking of the court.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Why bother making it illegal? It will either be worse than the government option, or will be better.
If it's worse, people won't use it. If it's better, then people will and it will save the tax payers money.
Outright banning free-enterprise seems like a Russian solution.
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)Nothing would make me happier than all of the health insurance companies going bankrupt.
global1
(25,253 posts)They may need to size down but they will become more efficient in the process. Their efficiency will result in continued profit as they learn to deal with the new reality of MFA.
Anytime there is any change in status quo - people will overeact and think the worst. They will adjust and thrive as MFA becomes the new reality.
pecosbob
(7,541 posts)the market will force those comanies to adapt.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Because his plans make it ILLEGAL for any private insurer to cover services also covered by the government.
His plans also makes it ILLEGAL for employers to offer their employees such insurance.
pecosbob
(7,541 posts)Not my favorite pol...way too obliging to the gun manufacturers.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He is a intellectually and ideologically rigid demagogue, who has been signing the same tune for decades and decades, without ever adjusting to realities on the ground. It's a complete mystery to me why he is so popular with so many in our party. Following him on his Quixotic crusades for unattainable goals would be a complete disaster.
pecosbob
(7,541 posts)He was one of the first public figures I can recall that called for a living wage and championed some worthy goals when he was a lone voice in a wilderness of silent Democratic figures. Dennis Kucinich said some some righteous stuff as well...doesn't mean that I would vote for for them though.