Serious question: Why no government-funded health-insurance?

[DetlefK]

- Health-insurance would be mandatory.

- The US-government would pay up-front about $1-10 billion to create the whole administrative infrastructure, nation-wide.

- There would never be another cash-input necessary again: There are no CEOs or managers to be paid, no lavish expenses of any kind. All the money that the insurance takes in, goes out again. Fully self-funded. The insurance-rates get adjusted on a yearly basis to keep the whole program operating at zero profit and zero loss, plus a monetary reserve of 20%. (Investment-banks are legally required to have a reserve of 7%.)



Health-insurance for everybody forever, with a one-time payment by the government that costs less than Trump's wall. The US-government would never have to spend a dime on this program ever again.

So, why not?

The argument that it's unfair competition to the insurance-companies doesn't count: This program is not allowed to incur losses and is not allowed to be bailed out by taxpayer-money.



(And while we're at it, this program would provide every insurant with a state-of-the-art electronic photo-ID.)

[PoliticAverse]

1. What you are asking about is the "public option" that Obama proposed when he ran for President...

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/obama_says_health-care_reform.html

And it was strongly opposed by insurance company interests because it would represent competition for them, which
is why it didn't make it into the final version of the ACA.

[Dorian Gray]

4. Competition

if run well it would put them out of business.

What I don't understand is how health insurance companies are allowed to be for-profit entities. They should not run on a for profit model, just like education should not. (And it pains me that for profit schools are becoming a popular thing in NYC.)

If our country insists on private health insurance instead of a publicly funded plan, then it should be provided by companies that don't make a profit off of our health.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Several countries that have universal health insurance do do it though the use of non profits.

There are also many non-profit insurance companies in the US ( and "mutual" insurance companies which are owned by
the insurance policy holders themselves) although some notable big ones have gone for profit.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. You would need to tax the rich to pay for it and we can't have that.

Of course there is some government funded health insurance, but I take it you are asking about a single payer system.

[Hoyt]

3. The overall idea is great, the "one time payment" by government is what people won't believe.

And, no need for managers and oversight.

Now, if you are willing to have the program say "No" to people needing expensive meds, surgeries, etc.; the millions of insured subject to huge rate increases in a system with no restrictions; no quality assurance programs; no utilization policies; doctors like Trump's physician making decisions on patient care unchecked by quality policies; and a bunch more; you might keep the government out of funding it and several hundred million people from complaining.

I do believe something like Medicare for all is the best system, but it won't be a whole lot cheaper than what we have now unless significant changes are made in the system.