Only two kinds of people oppose health care insurance reform. Are you one of them?

Only two kinds of people oppose health care insurance reform.
Are you one of them?

Yep, only two kinds of people: 1) people who value money more than human life; and 2) people who aren’t informed with facts enough to make a sane choice. If that ticks you off, you might be one of these two types of people, so keep reading.

Hey, look, what I mean by real health care reform is a single payer public option system for health care insurance, no refusal to insure for pre-existing conditions, no yearly or life time caps on benefits and services, no “doughnut hole” for prescriptions and no excuses for not having insurance.

Now wait, slow down there a minute – don’t go telling me that single payer public option means the United States is becoming a socialist country, that is flat out BS. Don’t tell me that a single payer public option system means a government take-over of the health care system either. That is simply something ignorant politicians spout because they lack the brains to understand what is best for the future of our country. Yea, that’s right.

Hey, listen, stop yelling long enough to hear some straight thinking for a few minutes, okay? I care as much about this country as you do. I’m just as concerned for my children as you are for yours. So take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a while. This is my blog, which means I have the right to speak through the written word and you have the right to read it – besides, I can’t hear you ranting on this side of the computer screen anyway.

First off, in countries with truly socialized medicine, all the doctors, nurses, specialists, surgeons etc. are government employees. They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not one healthcare bill introduced in Congress has included making these folks government employees. And that is because these bills aren’t about a government take-over of health care, they are about health-care insurance reform. Huge difference.

In a truly socialized medical system, all the hospitals, treatment centers, outpatient clinics, etc. that are a part of that government run system are owned by the government. They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not one bill introduced in Congress calls for the seizure of these buildings and properties in an effort to socialize our medical delivery system. And that is because these bills aren’t about a government take-over of health care, they are about health-care insurance reform. Huge difference.

Single payer public option insurance doesn’t change who doctors work for or who owns the hospital. Single payer public option means we all pay into the same insurance pool, spreading the costs out over a larger pool, reducing the costs for everyone. Now, keep reading, I’ll prove to you that I’m right about this.

Republicans Scream For More Competition, Oppose Ending Anti-Trust Exemption

One of the issues that I’ve heard from republicans is that there isn’t enough competition between health insurance providers to keep premiums down. First, note that republicans are talking about health insurance, not doctors and hospitals. See what I mean? The republicans suggest that insurance companies be allowed to offer their policies to people in neighboring states. My question is, why aren’t they allowed to do so now?

The reason the don’t do it now is because in some states, there are so few people that the insurance pool isn’t sufficiently large enough to allow competition and still have an affordable premium, so insurance companies are allowed monopolies.

So we have two concepts illustrated here: 1) a large pool is needed to support affordable insurance premiums as demonstrated by the insurance company practices; and 2) insurance companies are allowed monopolies to keep costs down.

Okay, so then how are insurance companies going to reduce premiums, the goal of reform, by doing things they all ready claim to increase premiums? And more importantly, if as the republicans claim, more competition is what is needed to reduce the cost of premiums, why are the republicans against ending the health insurance exemption from anti-trust laws? Having a monopoly is the complete opposite of competition, right?

Something doesn’t add up there.

Current Insurance Practices Support Single payer public option Concept

Oh, yes they do!

Since the health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws, that is to say that it is legal for health insurance companies to have monopolies, the industry has worked in concert to divide up areas with low populations so that the largest possible pool can be created to reduce per-participant costs (premiums). In other words, in areas of low population, the industry has decided that in order to keep premiums affordable and as low as possible, a monopoly is required. Another name for monopoly is Single payer public option. One company that you buy insurance from and one company that pays the health care provider. A monopoly. A single payer public option. Humm.

How can single payer public option be good for low population areas where the insurance industry agrees that a monopoly yields the lowest prices, but then turn around and tell us that if we are all in the same pool, costs won’t be the lowest possible?

Okay, so if we do what the republicans suggest, and we allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition but allow them to keep their legal right to form monopolies (single payer public option zones), which are the exact opposite of more competition, how does that lower premiums? Seems we'd be dividing folks up into more and smaller pools, no? That would increase premiums...

Well, hey, look, here is how insurance works, just so we are both on the same page. With insurance, the risk of the group that has the insurance is calculated along with other costs and the price of the premium is arrived at. It is far more complicated than that in detail, but that is the general idea. This is true for car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, all insurance to be sure. The fewer members of the pool means the risk is spread out over a smaller number of people therefore the individual costs are high. The more people in the pool (new homes, old homes, rented homes, owned homes, new cars, old cars, etc) the more the risk is spread out and the lower the cost to the individuals in the pool. That is why it has made sense to allow monopolies in low population areas and why there is room for more players in large population areas.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if you create the largest pool possible for the risk to be spread out over, the lower the overall cost to the individual participants.

And that is what single payer public option means – it means we are all in the same pool to have the lowest costs possible. And in a single payer public option system, it makes sense to require all adult people to buy insurance, or to raise taxes to cover the cost (eliminating your health care premium at the same time).

So why do you oppose lowering health care premiums for all Americans?

Lets take a closer look at how the system works right now.

There are two main groups of people whose health is worse than the rest of society, therefore, their health care costs are higher. Those two groups are poor people and old people. The healthiest group of people are – well, in general, the more money people make, the healthier people tend to be. The more money you make, the more likely it is that you will have health insurance.

The healthier the pool of people insured, the higher the insurance companies profits.

Okay, so I think I understand how this is structured now.

Poor people get Medicaid and old people get Medicare, both of which are government run health care insurance programs. This means that the two groups with the highest costs are insured by the tax payers, while the healthiest groups are insured by the health insurance industry. Put another way, the liability is socialized while the profits are privatized. That sucks.

Lets go one step further into the mud, shall we?

Lets take a look at the uninsured, who also have a real high health care cost compared to insured groups. Uninsured people use the ER more than any other group. This is the most expensive type of medical care. However, people without insurance don’t have the money to pay their medical bills. While they are making their minimum payments, if any at all, the hospital has to cover the costs themselves and does so by raising the prices they charge to those with insurance, you, the tax payer.

First, I want to thank you, the tax payer with health care insurance, for paying for the uninsured in the form of higher premiums, for paying for the old people in the form of higher taxes and for paying for the poor people in the form of higher taxes, as well as paying for your own insurance in the form of smaller paychecks and fewer raises.

And I must apologize because in all my wandering around within this issue I’ve forgotten why you are opposed to the health care insurance reforms and the single payer public option. Feel free to use the comment section below to remind me. Thanks in advance.

The Constitutional & Moral Imperative

When rich & powerful interests control the very means by which we extend our lives (as they now do) & those same resources are withheld from citizens for the sack of profits (as they now are) – when such action results in the deaths of thousands each year (as, indeed, it now does), the government is constitutionally obligated to protect citizens against such fatal aggression. We have no other course but to take control from private interest to protect the lives of our citizens, for private interest has shown itself incapable of honoring life and putting people’s lives before obscene profits.

Thanks for reading my blog! Post a comment! Share this with others!