←back to thread

142 points helloworld | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.011s | source
Show context
seibelj ◴[] No.12306806[source]
Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?
replies(35): >>12306825 #>>12306846 #>>12306849 #>>12306865 #>>12306883 #>>12306896 #>>12306906 #>>12306909 #>>12306920 #>>12306921 #>>12306948 #>>12306954 #>>12306958 #>>12306977 #>>12306983 #>>12307038 #>>12307105 #>>12307152 #>>12307153 #>>12307306 #>>12307335 #>>12307342 #>>12307397 #>>12307504 #>>12307572 #>>12307975 #>>12308036 #>>12308110 #>>12308127 #>>12308342 #>>12308357 #>>12308931 #>>12309015 #>>12309142 #>>12309820 #
VonGuard ◴[] No.12306849[source]
There is no benefit. The benefit is for the legislatures who passed the law. There was no way that we'd get single payer here in the US because our Congress is very much in the pocket of the health care industry. As such, the markets were a compromise measure enacted by congress to make it easier for people to choose health care. Before Obamacare, it was sort of a black box where only HR people could figure out pricing structures and health care providers didn't really compete in any way with each other.

Obamacare did do some good things that needed to be done, but essentially, everything about it was a bandaid intended to kick this shitty system down the road to the next person who had to deal with it. But hey, at least health care companies can't just turn you down because you have Diabetes or are too fat anymore.

replies(3): >>12306932 #>>12306935 #>>12310096 #
eridius ◴[] No.12306932[source]
There's no way that we'd get single payer here because the Republican party has convinced their base that single-payer health care is socialism and that socialism is evil, which leads to the situation where poor people who desperately need health care and can't afford it still oppose single-payer even though they stand to gain the most from it.
replies(8): >>12307005 #>>12307145 #>>12307235 #>>12307241 #>>12308132 #>>12308309 #>>12308651 #>>12310156 #
im_down_w_otp ◴[] No.12307235[source]
It wasn't Republicans that removed the "Public Option" or the Drug re-importation initiatives from the ACA. FWIW.
replies(2): >>12307549 #>>12308767 #
1. ende ◴[] No.12307549[source]
I wonder how many people would trade individual mandate for public option.
replies(1): >>12313208 #
2. danielweber ◴[] No.12313208[source]
You can't get rid of the individual mandate without completely destroying the whole law.

It's the unpopular part of the law. But pretty much anything that works is going to have some unpopular component that needs to be swallowed in order for the whole thing to work.

When Republicans talk about getting rid of the individual mandate, it's because they are, in actuality, trying to kill the law. When Democrats talk about it, I really don't know what's going through their heads. Leftist wonks like Krugman or Klein keep on telling them exactly why it's needed.

replies(1): >>12322185 #
3. ende ◴[] No.12322185[source]
Sure, but not really what I meant. Adding public option and subtracting individual mandate would basically be a step towards having single payer with secondary private market.
replies(1): >>12322244 #
4. dragonwriter ◴[] No.12322244{3}[source]
> Adding public option and subtracting individual mandate would basically be a step towards having single payer with secondary private market.

I don't see how it would be, unless by "subtracting individual mandate" you mean "replacing an individual mandate backed with a fee/tax/penalty for failure to comply with a universal tax, an option to select a private option with the tax refunded as a subsidy, and a default of using the public option if no private option is selected". Which, really, is retaining the individual mandate, but making it impossible to break rather than penalizing breaking it.