quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
The health insurance companies have become monopolies and they need to use antitrust legislation to break them up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
What we have now is not acceptable and it’s not working. You offered no alternative that works, you just criticized using antitrust legislation to break up a monopoly but offered no alternative.

I put it to you without realizing it that you just made an argument for why a public option is the best solution. A public option is necessary to provide competition and unlike small companies as you describe going bankrupt, the government will not go bankrupt because of health insurance claims.

Although not paying for the wars may turn out to be a different story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Following the lines of monopoly logic --- if single payer were adopted, as in many if not most developed countries, the monopoly would be shifted to the buyers of insurance, i.e. the taxypayers -- the people. Then the people could save bucketloads. That's why Canadian health care is cheaper and just as good, probably in many ways better, than U.S. health care. Less overhead, competitive prices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Following the lines of monopoly logic --- if single payer were adopted, as in many if not most developed countries, the monopoly would be shifted to the buyers of insurance, i.e. the taxypayers -- the people. Then the people could save bucketloads. That's why Canadian health care is cheaper and just as good, probably in many ways better, than U.S. health care. Less overhead, competitive prices.

This may be the most bass ackwards post Ive ever read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
What we have now is not acceptable and it’s not working. You offered no alternative that works, you just criticized using antitrust legislation to break up a monopoly but offered no alternative.

I put it to you without realizing it that you just made an argument for why a public option is the best solution. A public option is necessary to provide competition and unlike small companies as you describe going bankrupt, the government will not go bankrupt because of health insurance claims.

Although not paying for the wars may turn out to be a different story.

You are absolutely right, what we have right now is not acceptable and not working at all. The reason I am still criticizing antitrust legislation is that I believe the outcome would be even worse - hard to believe, but, yes, it can still get worse. I actually did offer an alternative, and it also comes from antitrust laws: regulate insurance companies as public utilities. Just as we tell gas and electric companies exactly what prices they can charge and what quality of service they have to provide, we could do the same thing with insurance companies. I don't think this would be a good solution, but it it would probably be an improvement over what we have now.

In the end, though, we are in agreement - what we have now isn't working and is completely utterly unacceptable.

A public option is the absolute minimum necessary. I would go further and say: let's leverage what we already have and simply abolish the age limit in Medicare.

quote:

pst Silence.... they missed that part... grins
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Following the lines of monopoly logic --- if single payer were adopted, as in many if not most developed countries, the monopoly would be shifted to the buyers of insurance, i.e. the taxypayers -- the people. Then the people could save bucketloads. That's why Canadian health care is cheaper and just as good, probably in many ways better, than U.S. health care. Less overhead, competitive prices.

This may be the most bass ackwards post Ive ever read.

Exactly -- most of what you think is likely exactly wrong. Maybe you should google 'single payer' to see what's going on in the rest of the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Following the lines of monopoly logic --- if single payer were adopted, as in many if not most developed countries, the monopoly would be shifted to the buyers of insurance, i.e. the taxypayers -- the people. Then the people could save bucketloads. That's why Canadian health care is cheaper and just as good, probably in many ways better, than U.S. health care. Less overhead, competitive prices.

This may be the most bass ackwards post Ive ever read.

Exactly -- most of what you think is likely exactly wrong. Maybe you should google 'single payer' to see what's going on in the rest of the world.

First, I know whats going on in the rest of the world, and it isn't favorable for single payer.

Second, your concept of "monopoly buyers" is so economically retarded its ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Following the lines of monopoly logic --- if single payer were adopted, as in many if not most developed countries, the monopoly would be shifted to the buyers of insurance, i.e. the taxypayers -- the people. Then the people could save bucketloads. That's why Canadian health care is cheaper and just as good, probably in many ways better, than U.S. health care. Less overhead, competitive prices.

This may be the most bass ackwards post Ive ever read.

Exactly -- most of what you think is likely exactly wrong. Maybe you should google 'single payer' to see what's going on in the rest of the world.

First, I know whats going on in the rest of the world, and it isn't favorable for single payer.

Second, your concept of "monopoly buyers" is so economically retarded its ridiculous.

Actually, it's pretty well-established. It's called a Monopsony. Note that the article specifically lists single payer as the example. Another example, interestingly enough, is Walmart.

ahahahahaha (laughingly smugly, commencing awkward dancing) I guess I won this one!

quote:


now you not only are an economic dunce, you cant even read your own link.

"In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (monos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnia) "purchase") is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. "

Your claim was many buyers...the public..... facing one seller...the single payer provider.

Tripped over your feet dancing, what a shame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:


now you not only are an economic dunce, you cant even read your own link.

"In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (monos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnia) "purchase") is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. "

Your claim was many buyers...the public..... facing one seller...the single payer provider.

Tripped over your feet dancing, what a shame.

Single payer... it's mentioned in the very article on monopsony.

Single payer = single buyer. One buyer. Not many, one. Just one.

When you buy something, you pay for it. Hence single payer. That's the idea. That's what everyone is talking about when they talk about single payer.

As one single payer, we can bargain better prices than we can through a multitude of insurance companies. (Putting aside the massive differences in oversight.) After all, with medicare for all, there's only one game in town.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

There is a loophole in the Senate health-care bill, as currently written the health-care bill allows insurance companies to set limits. So if you reach your limit then you end up having to pay a lot of money.