Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.

Why do you think it would run private insurance into the ground? Private insurance is available in Australia, and is a relatively healthy (oops) industry.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.

Why do you think it would run private insurance into the ground? Private insurance is available in Australia, and is a relatively healthy (oops) industry.

The government doesn't need profit to survive, but private insurance does.

For one, private insurance won't be able to meet the rates that the public insurance will provide (subsidized to provide for free or very cheap).

Secondly, this bill will strangle the private insurance industry from various incentives and penalties (taxes) to employers and citizens alike.

How do private insurers in Australia stay afloat?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.

Why do you think it would run private insurance into the ground? Private insurance is available in Australia, and is a relatively healthy (oops) industry.

The government doesn't need profit to survive, but private insurance does.
For one, private insurance won't be able to meet the rates that the public insurance will provide (extremely low or free). Secondly, this bill will strangle the private insurance industry from various incentives and penalties (taxes) to employers and citizens alike.

Which you'll cite for us now, right....?

Already cited before. Companies who do not provide the public plan will be taxed 2, 4, 6, or 8% payroll tax.

Citizens who choose to not be insured will be taxed 2.5% income (pg. 167)

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
How do private insurers in Australia stay afloat?

As I said, not all doctors in Australia are available to the public health system. The "good" doctors charge more and are thus available only to people with private insurance.

The public system provides the minimum required to be adequate for most people. You can go to see a GP for free, you can go to a (public) hospital if you need to, etc. But if you want more than that, you can get private insurance - that means you get to go to a private hospital. You also get coverage for "extras" such as optical and dental which are not provided for under the public system.

As far as I can see, the public system proposed for the U.S. is quite similar to this.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Citizens who choose to not be insured will be taxed 2.5% income (pg. 167)

In Australia, this is called the Medicare Levy Surcharge. It's also charged at 2.5% of taxable income.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
How do private insurers in Australia stay afloat?

As I said, not all doctors in Australia are available to the public health system. The "good" doctors charge more and are thus available only to people with private insurance.

The public system provides the minimum required to be adequate for most people. You can go to see a GP for free, you can go to a (public) hospital if you need to, etc. But if you want more than that, you can get private insurance - that means you get to go to a private hospital. You also get coverage for "extras" such as optical and dental which are not provided for under the public system.

As far as I can see, the public system proposed for the U.S. is quite similar to this.

What is required of employers?

If this thing does pass, I hope for 3 things.

1.) That America can pay for it. "Deficit Neutral" sounds a little dreamy to me.

2.) Private insurance can still survive and allow the public option to stay an option.

3.) Efficiencies of hospitals aren't compromised.

I do not mind paying a higher tax so that others can receive basic coverage. But I do mind paying higher taxes if it means compromising my own health.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
....Citizens who choose to not be insured will be taxed 2.5% income (pg. 167)

Call me crazy.... but I'm pretty sure that incentives for 40 million people to become potential customers has quite the opposite effect of "strangling" the insurance industry.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
....Citizens who choose to not be insured will be taxed 2.5% income (pg. 167)

Call me crazy.... but I'm pretty sure that incentives for 40 million people to become potential customers has quite the opposite effect of "strangling" the insurance industry.

That is assuming that the 40 million cannot already afford private insurance, or they would already have it. Therefore those are 40 million potential PUBLIC customers.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
....Citizens who choose to not be insured will be taxed 2.5% income (pg. 167)

Call me crazy.... but I'm pretty sure that incentives for 40 million people to become potential customers has quite the opposite effect of "strangling" the insurance industry.

That is assuming that the 40 million cannot already afford private insurance, or they would already have it.

And you don't think you've done enough assuming already?

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Therefore those are 40 million potential PUBLIC customers.

Perhaps. Feel free to cite how they will automatically be customers of the public plan.

As for your other claim about "strangling the private industry."

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
....this bill will strangle the private insurance industry from various incentives and penalties (taxes) to employers and citizens alike.

Which you'll cite for us now, right....?

Already cited before. Companies who do not provide the public plan will be taxed 2, 4, 6, or 8% payroll tax.

Uhh... no. Again, your claim is shockingly off-base, considering the actual bill text you've tried to cite (page 150 ... actually pages 144-150 from what I can tell). There is absolutely nothing there that states that employers have to "provide the public plan."



So far, neither one of your rationales for "strangling the private industry" seems to pose the problems you claim. Sadly, your understanding of the bill doesn't even seem sufficient enough for you to be close to making such dire pronoucements.