Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Your cynicism is dually noted. One thing I am fairly certain of is that the quality of care for 45 million people without coverage will improve. My employer still has the option of paying our HMO $$$ so I don't see how the quality of care will decrease. Maybe most employers decide to drop their HMO plans and rely on the government?
I guess having uninsured is good for the insured. Less competition is always good for the apex predator. Is anyone working a book titled "Universal Healthcare: Tragedy Waiting to Happen" yet?
|
1. With a national health plan, your employer's HMO coverage will eventually become more expensive. Initially, your quality of care will not decrease. At some point, as more and more people become "uninsured" and rely on the national plan, your employer's HMO become more expensive and he will eventually drop it leaving you with the national plan.
2. In general, and as I have pointed out above, having uninsured is NOT good for the rest of the insurance pool. Rather, having a large number of healthy young people paying for insurance lowers costs for
all insureds.
3. I have not said that universal health care is a tragedy, rather, I suggest that to expect, in a nation of 250 million, high quality care at bargain basement prices is unrealistic. Clearly, universal healthcare improves coverage for the uninsured. I merely suggest that for a vast majority of americans, such changes will make their own insurance either more expensive or provide less insurance.
4. Wow!!! I get to be an apex predator?? Cool!! (usually, I am just some middle of the pack herd animal attempting to find todays veggies).