What makes the health insurance industry so weak that it is unable to compete with the government?

[ck4829]

Because, after all, we know that FedEx and the UPS have failed when they tried to compete with the government's postal service, that private schools have all failed when they tried to compete with the public schools, that student loan companies were all put out of business by the government's grants and aid services, and private hospitals all crumbled when faced with government clinics and hospitals for veterans.

Right?

What makes them so weak?

[Critters2]

1. Yep. After all, we all know the gummint can't do anything right! nt

[timeforpeace]

16. Pretzel logic is the bestest logic of all!

[RobertSeattle]

2. Good point

I'm also amused by the wingnut argument that Government Health care is going to spend us into oblivion - BUT THERE WILL BE RATIONING - Hey wingnut - that makes no sense.

[ensho]

3. obscene CEO salaries and bonus?

nt

[fascisthunter]

4. they are middlemen... they have no real role

except for ripping people off. And when a public option is available, that nasty truth will become more and more evident.

Can they compete? By their own efforts to destroy reform, I'd say they can't.

[notesdev]

5. Just a wild guess

But the inability to tax, print money, write the law to suit their needs, or borrow amounts in the trillions might be a minor disadvantage.

[Juche]

6. They have to devote as small a % to healthcare as possible

That is what the ex PR rep of cigna (think it was cigna) said, that the % devoted to healthcare had to be as small as possible, 79% or lower is good. Public plans devote 96%+ to healthcare.

Anyway, I don't know if you're being rhetorical or asking a serious question. But there you go. Public plans will devote about 95% of expenses to providing healthcare, private plans will devote 80% to healthcare, so it'll cost $1.05 to get $1 in healthcare in a private plan and $1.25 to get $1 in healthcare in a public plan. They can't compete.

Plus public plans have more leveraging power and can lower costs. So overall a public plan is 20-30% cheaper than a private plan.

[baldguy]

7. Greed

[ejpoeta]

8. they aren't weak... they are bloated. competition would force them to have less profits.

[global1]

9. They're Not Unable To Compete......

they just don't want to have to compete. Profits you know!!!!!

[Overseas]

10. Nothing makes them weak. Hundreds of millions to right wing PR firms

has kept them strong.

The Medical Care for Profit sector stomped out the Democrats' last attempt at introducing national health insurance and have had over a decade to prove their claim that the private sector could do better, and things have just gotten worse.

So this time the hundreds of millions of right wing PR dollars have been applied to distracting us from talking about the failures of privatized healthcare during August and focused us on "spontaneous" demonstrations by people fearing change. The hundreds of millions have stoked the fire so well that they've driven people to townhalls to shout down their own best interests. They've cloaked themselves in "grass roots" front groups that lay dormant during Republican administrations but "have been around for years."

The for-profit medical system has failed so miserably that they need to stir up dangerous fears and hatred to protect their billions in profit. Dangerous and reckless. And all for profit.

[Voice for Peace]

11. cheat & deceit? nt

[geek_sabre]

12. They really can't compete with each other now

There are essentially regional monopolies, because they aren't able to compete across state lines.

Can't really compare it to any of the analogies you offer.

If they will be allowed to actually compete, then yes, they can coexist, but as the bill states now, there is nothing that indicates that they will be able to compete nationwide.

[unblock]

13. it's actually a fairly insane talking point for them, that they can't compete with a public plan

i mean, normally they advocate private corporations running things BECAUSE they can do it better and more cheaply and more efficiently than the government can. if they give up that argument, where's the compelling reason to have private corporations run things?

they should profit EVEN THOUGH they do it worse? that's just nuts.

[cascadiance]

14. I guess they figure its like a business partner trying to compete with a company's products...

They figure they shouldn't compete when they have "agreements" between each other (sealed in Campaign Finance Bribery Dollars Inc.(Ink) ).

[agent46]

15. I wouldn't worry about the bookies

They can compete just fine. As Howard Dean said the other day, "They're smart people. They'll figure out a way to make money."

It's easier for the insurance conglomerates to simply kill any real reform before the fact. If they don't succeed, and some sort of public option is offered, they'll have to actually work to adapt and compete. As I see it, that's really the main expense their trying like hell to avoid here. The issue of not being able to compete is a red herring. It's all about the money saved by maintaining status quo.