If there's no public option HMO's can continue to raise your premiums at 2.5 times the rate of inflation.?

That's what they've been doing for the last 20 years.

Does that make Republicans happy?

Or are they now, all of a sudden, big fans of regulation? Have they gone socialist where it comes to their premiums, but not where it comes to good health care for all citizens? Hmmm?


You folks have to get out there and fight for this. You have to organize and demand a public option. If you don't do that now, you will have the worst health care system in the industrial world for perpetuity.

17 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The average cost in health care premiums has gone up by an average of $500.00 in the last two years, way beyond the increase in the cost of health care.

    How much more will it rise before you or your company can no longer pay the premiums and you will be without health care? Worried about wait times- imagine the wait in the one or two hospital left in your state with an ER willing to treat you.

    Much of the additional cost is attributable to the power of pharmaceutical and other lobbyists. For example, mediation is typically one third the cost of medication in the private sector simply because only the VA is allowed to negotiate and seek out alternative sources to purchase medication. The pharmaceutical companies still make a tremendous profit, but charge what they charge in Europe and Canada. No one else can do this (including Medicare/Medicaid) because of lobbyist and the politicians they own. Shouldn't we be asking the politicians why they allow pharmaceutical companies to get away with this?

    We have the worst health care system in the entire industrial world, but pay four times more for it. We are not paying for good health care. Our cost are not in line with the rest of the world. There is less mortality and medical "accidents" in the top ten countries. We certainly have our some superior medical technologies, but few people can afford them, and other countries are begining to pass us in many of these specialities. In general, most people are quite proud of their health care system in Great Briton, France, Canada, etc.. There are problems, but much much less than we face. People complain about the wait time on certain medical procedures, but that is partly due to the fact that they pay so much less than we do. Rand's research indicated that with a signal payor policy, if we pay what we currently pay, there would virtually be no waiting times at all and everyone could have the procedure.

    There are many things we need to investigate (e.g., tort reform, computerized patient records, corruption in the FDA, etc.).

    We need to do it now or we will end up like many of our esteemed supposedly "well-off" geriatric patients who discover that they would have to be rich to afford the care they need, and therefor, forced are to divorce and give away all of there money in the hope that they will then be able to qualify for welfare (medicaid).

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I fear a diluted ineffective so called "Reform" is being created because money talks and integrity walks.

    "It’s True! Health Insurers Tell Congress They Cancel Policies of Sick Patients

    Category: Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology

    Published: July 6 2009

    Rescinding health policies of 20,000 people in past five years saved health insurers $300 million

    For years, Americans have heard news stories about the sick patient whose health insurance policy was rescinded in the midst of a health crisis. Now comes public acknowledgement—at a Congressional hearing no less—that this business practice exists!

    Executives from three of the nation’s largest health insurers admitted to this practice when testifying at a Congressional investigation recently. Observers believe the surprisingly candid acknowledgement about health insurance recessions pretty much guarantees insurers will be excluded from the health care reform debate. It may even ensure inclusion of a government health insurance plan in the final legislation which passes."

    I see a future where we will need a supplemental insurance policy to cover our Health Care Costs in the event that our primary insurance company declines our claims and cancels our policies. More insurance to buy and pay for = more profit.

    Then when the supplemental insurance policy starts to deny claims and cancel policies we can buy the supplemental insurance policy II which will cover us when the supplemental insurance policy I does not.

    Obama's election campaign promise was to make the changes needed and that it was not going to be easy. The "status quo" has so much profit at stake at the expense of the middle class that there is nothing they will not do to block any and all changes. Can any one forget that the Republicans demanded changes to the Stimulus Bill in the pretense that they would then give their support? And the compromises they demanded were a "bait and switch" tactic and all but 3 Republicans still voted NO?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You can look things like this up and get an idea before you form an opinion. That is one thing I really like to do. I really never form an opinion base upon what someone told me or talking points. to answer you question I found this.

    The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008.

    When you divide the population by the 1.3 trillion figure some claim it will cost to start Obamacare it figures out to about $17,000.00 for a family of four. That looks like a net loss of $4300. Enough to insure another family member.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A public option is also absolutely crucial to make the health-care system work efficiently and keep prices affordable. Those who question the government's ability to operate a public option should look at the Veterans Affairs health-care system that is rated by independent health-care rating agencies as providing the best medical care in the country.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • You truly make a very interesting point! I think the health care insurance cooperative idea might get Repube NeoCon right-wingers to finally cooperate with health care reform progress! Unfortunately, it still appears to me to be a watered down version of a government run health care insurance company or so-called 'public option' for uninsured and under-insured citizens!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Your math is fuzzy. Your logic is non-existent. Liberals are the new Luddites.

    Tank Ted Kennedy for the HMO concept. Just another liberal idea that generated the opposite results of what was intended.

    Health insurers base their premiums on the risks they insure. Rates are regulated by state governments. If you are not happy, blame your governor.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Get ready for $800.00 a month minimal coverage with maximum deductibles.

    The very sad part is all the anti-healthcare reform people here who DON'T have healthcare insurance and are PROUD OF IT!!

    And if they get sick they will just run to the hospital for free treatment at 10 times the regular cost, and be a burden on the taxpayer just like the illegal aliens they are always complaining about!

    Source(s): It just boggles the mind how some people can think (or not).
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I thought the free market was supposed to take care of this.

    Oh well, I spend $416/month on insurance, and I'm not entirely sure why, because when I needed surgery I found out I could either pay out of pocket to have it done right away, or wait 4 months to get in with a surgeon who is, "in network".

    So why am I paying for insurance again?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes they can.

    They can also pack the boards of the non-profits and cause them to be sold to the insurance companies. This happens frequently with successful Blue cross Blue Shield non-profits.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Proof-positive you don't even know what the problem is. HMO's are a government advent, of course they're inefficient and are an inconvenience.

    Health Care costs drive insurance prices up. If the bills don't address cost first and foremost, we're merely pushing the problems down the line and placing them in the laps of our kids. A selfish and unethical thing to do.

    We have Medicare/Medicaid that have a combined unfunded liability of 70 Trillion dollars -- someone has to pay for it. Apparently we're going to push it down the line too on top of the trillions of dollars we're adding to our national debt.

    Regulation? Regulation keeps insurance companies from competing domestically across state lines -- that pushes the price up too.

    Offering a public "option" doesn't assure "good health care for all citizens". It assures that hospitals will take losses, have to scale back staff and quality will dwindle as net losses stack up.

    We don't have to use any estimates here. Medicare currently pays 64% of their obligation. They announced two months ago that they're cutting that reimbursement rate by another 21% by the end of the year. My g/f took a pay/hours/benefits cut b/c of it and the practice where she works is talking about refusing treatment to Medicare patients -- can't afford to take them in.

    For this reason, government is a primary component in the high health care costs we face today. Who do you think picks up that remaining 36%? Premiums go up lately? We're getting taxed once up front on income to pay for Medicare/Medicaid/etc...and then again and again every time we pay our premiums. People don't recognize that.

    Any bill that doesn't address Health Care Costs isn't a bill at all. In fact, I'd contend that if Obama took all of those "Savings" he's been talking about to be found in Medicaid/Medicare and paid hospitals in FULL as promised (that's 100% of their costs) -- costs to users would come down.

    The public option isn't sustainable.

    Medicare - 36 trillion in unfunded liabilities

    Medicaid - 35 trillion in unfunded liabilities

    Tricare - Already being reformed

    VA Care - Hit and Miss. The misses often result in amputation (look at Canada's amputation numbers)

    Hawaii's System - Bankrupt

    Oregon's System - Bankrupt

    Medi-CAL (Cali) - Bankrupt

    Mass.'s System - Bankrupt

    Apparently hearing the word "FREE" increases the density of one's skull.


    I have insurance...I've never my coverage lapse and I always pay my bills.

    And to further implicate those who know nothing about the Health Care industry, nobody is against REFORM. 99.9999% of people want reform to bring costs down. What they don't want is a huge Government takeover of industry -- and that includes Health Care. The Government already controls 1/5 of our GDP. Apparently that doesn't bother any of you. "Free" is the name of the game on both sides of the isle. Some people want FREEdom -- others want FREE services at the expense of that FREEdom. I think it's pathetic and we can do better. Congress should legislate policies that require the free-market to reform their practices. Taking on businesses themselves is unconstitutional:


    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.