4 ms·

Three large employers, realising that for-profit healthcare is expensive and inefficient, create a non-profit that pools healthcare and is driven by its member'

Three large employers, realising that for-profit healthcare is expensive and inefficient, create a non-profit that pools healthcare and is driven by its member's interests. This is terrible if it works. Imagine if other employers want to join it. And then even more employers... and what if the scheme becomes so large and covering so much of the population that it ... gasp... looks almost like a government-run non-profit health insurance scheme! You know, like what those Marxists in Europe have. And where it would it end - soon people would be demanding cheaper drug prices and being able to negotiate prices for drugs! Insane (In case its not clear, the above is written ironicly. I am all for a well funded government-run health service)

dexterdog 9y ago
Except that it's not a monopoly. There are still options that will compete with each other.
- noir-york 9y ago
  There will be economies of scale. The bigger the pool of employees the lower the costs, so yes there are options but they could get fewer if this takes off.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Nobody opposes economies of scale. What we oppose is being forced by the government to accept a 1 size fits all plan, and not being allowed to buy the healthcare plan we want. It is the difference between everyone using Facebook because they like the product and the network effect, vs everyone using governmentBook because the government outlawed all competing social networks.
    - noir-york 9y ago
      One does not preclude the other. In European countries with a national health service you can still buy private coverage. Incidentally, a one-size fits most plan works great for alot of people.
    - FroshKiller 9y ago
      Everyone who says, "Why should I have to pay for poor people's health care?" is opposed to economies of scale.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        If the US only allowed one grocery store to exist, that would have economies of scale as well. Shouldn't we then give everyone "food insurance" which you pay for with taxes, and then are able to use that food insurance to get food from the store for free? (well, not really free, paid for by your taxes). You'd pay a predetermined amount of money no matter what you got from the store, but your options would be limited by the government food insurance committee. If you don't support this single payer food insurance solution to all of your caloric needs, then my question for you is why do you hate poor people?
        noir-york 9y ago
        Government provision does NOT stop the private sector from providing options. It is not an either government OR private. But both. Your example does not exist anywhere, nor is it what it is being advocated. To be realistic your example would be as follows: what if the US provided a grocery store that provided the basic necessities, free at the point of provistion and paid for by common taxation. People are free to buy the nice wine from the private provider next door BUT if you fall on hard times and you need to put food on the table, the rest of your fellow citizens help pay to make sure you, your partner, and your children have food to eat, and retain a semblance of human dignity, until you can get back on your feet and pay taxes that provide for someone else who needs help.
        dexterdog 9y ago
        Where does it stop? If "healthcare is a right" and "food is a right" and "shelter is a right" who is going to pay for all of these services for all of these people when they have no vital need to go out and support themselves? Who's going to maintain the sewers and take care of the trash and all of the jobs that most people don't want to do?
balthasar 9y ago
It does seem silly to start a health insurance company when it will only be a couple of years before we nationalize health care.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Based on the results of the last few election cycles, I think you are being overly optimistic but I hope you are right. We could not even get the Medicare age lowered to 55 because it required a super majority in the Senate and that failed when Democrats has 60 votes because there's always someone holding out, in that case Joe Lieberman. When Democrats adopted the healthcare plan advocated by conservative thinktanks into ACA/Obamacare, the conservatives moved farther to the right - every time what we see is the Democrats triangulate and the Republicans move the goal posts.

dexterdog 9y ago

Except that it's not a monopoly. There are still options that will compete with each other.

noir-york 9y ago
There will be economies of scale. The bigger the pool of employees the lower the costs, so yes there are options but they could get fewer if this takes off.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Nobody opposes economies of scale. What we oppose is being forced by the government to accept a 1 size fits all plan, and not being allowed to buy the healthcare plan we want. It is the difference between everyone using Facebook because they like the product and the network effect, vs everyone using governmentBook because the government outlawed all competing social networks.
  - noir-york 9y ago
    One does not preclude the other. In European countries with a national health service you can still buy private coverage. Incidentally, a one-size fits most plan works great for alot of people.
  - FroshKiller 9y ago
    Everyone who says, "Why should I have to pay for poor people's health care?" is opposed to economies of scale.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      If the US only allowed one grocery store to exist, that would have economies of scale as well. Shouldn't we then give everyone "food insurance" which you pay for with taxes, and then are able to use that food insurance to get food from the store for free? (well, not really free, paid for by your taxes). You'd pay a predetermined amount of money no matter what you got from the store, but your options would be limited by the government food insurance committee. If you don't support this single payer food insurance solution to all of your caloric needs, then my question for you is why do you hate poor people?
      - noir-york 9y ago
        Government provision does NOT stop the private sector from providing options. It is not an either government OR private. But both. Your example does not exist anywhere, nor is it what it is being advocated. To be realistic your example would be as follows: what if the US provided a grocery store that provided the basic necessities, free at the point of provistion and paid for by common taxation. People are free to buy the nice wine from the private provider next door BUT if you fall on hard times and you need to put food on the table, the rest of your fellow citizens help pay to make sure you, your partner, and your children have food to eat, and retain a semblance of human dignity, until you can get back on your feet and pay taxes that provide for someone else who needs help.
        dexterdog 9y ago
        Where does it stop? If "healthcare is a right" and "food is a right" and "shelter is a right" who is going to pay for all of these services for all of these people when they have no vital need to go out and support themselves? Who's going to maintain the sewers and take care of the trash and all of the jobs that most people don't want to do?

balthasar 9y ago

It does seem silly to start a health insurance company when it will only be a couple of years before we nationalize health care.

stevenwoo 9y ago
Based on the results of the last few election cycles, I think you are being overly optimistic but I hope you are right. We could not even get the Medicare age lowered to 55 because it required a super majority in the Senate and that failed when Democrats has 60 votes because there's always someone holding out, in that case Joe Lieberman. When Democrats adopted the healthcare plan advocated by conservative thinktanks into ACA/Obamacare, the conservatives moved farther to the right - every time what we see is the Democrats triangulate and the Republicans move the goal posts.