portlandbusinessdaily

How will it be possible to have both government health care and free market health care?

If the proposed tax on existing insurance plans provided by employers is implemented, won't that drive business away from the private insurance companies to the government? Either by causing employers to drop coverage or just by the fact it my be cheaper to get it from the government. Won't the government have every incentive to change rules to get as many people on the government program as possible?

Public Comments

1. Government can supply suicide machines if your over 47. Private companies will be forced out of the market.
2. ^^^^^^^ You mean euthanasia? I don't think so.
3. Exactly, there will be no free health care you will pay out the yin-yang in taxes for it! Nothing is free
4. You can't. Government will undercut private business and will eventually destroy it and therefore will continue its liberal mindset that you are too stupid or just a child and we know what is best for YOU
5. It's amazing, Children are automatically covered by existing welfare and social programs like Medicaid, and local state run programs. There are ways people can network into a group policy at a substantial savings. Ask yourself, would you be comfortable with some bureaucracy having the final word on what procedures you are and are not eligible for.
6. Eventually the (unconstitutional) government run health care will drive the private sector insurance companies out of business and we will be stuck with the same inefficient and intrusive health care system as the U.K., France, Canada and some other countries. You can say goodbye to your freedom. You can say goobye to choices. All choices will be made for you by politicians in Washington. At a certain age it will no longer be cost effective to provide you with health care and you will just be left to die. If you don't believe me, ask my cousin's mother-in-law in France. Oh wait, you can't, she's dead. After she turned 70 they no longer covered her and she died just a couple years later. If she had been covered she may still be alive today. I'd like to know how they think raising taxes or adding a new tax is going to help. How will they be able to lower costs if they take more money from the people or companies who provide the care, the insurance, the health care equipment, the drugs or anything else that goes into the cost of health care? Higher taxes drive up the cost of doing business. If cost goes up and people can't afford as much then businesses are spending more to make less money UNLESS they raise prices. If they can't raise prices they cut expenses. That could mean lower wages, fewer benefits, loss of jobs, etc. More government involvement =higher taxes=less money for private sector to create wealth=less wealth=lower tax revenues=higher tax rates=more government invovement and the circle goes on and on and on. With each successive tax increase the next call for higher taxes comes sooner than the previous one. Eventually, either there is a backlash from the voters who feel like they're being taxed to death, or the economy collapses under the weight of an oversized government that just keeps growing and demanding more at an exponential rate. Either way it hurts the very people it is supposed to help.
7. First of all, Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare. He wants to make insurance more available to all. Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage. That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
8. Can't have both, in Britain the Dr's migrated over to private practice at the first opportunity, to MAKE MONEY, while limiting the graduation of new Dr's in order to keep out competition (the basis of free market capitalism) so the best way is the Canadian or Swedish way, with no outside practices, the rich and the poor are supposed to be treated equally, (and it mostly works)
9. This is precisely the prediction that everyone higher up is warning us about. However, right now, we have both Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are government programs. Medicare is for those who have reached the age of 65. Medicaid, in Nevada, is only for those who qualify for TANF (Previously called welfare.), or who are disabled and qualify for either SSDI or SSI. Some smaller entities, like counties in some states, have their own programs and rules as to who qualifies for free medical care on an as-needed basis. These programs do not usually overlap each other, nor do they have any comparable coverage offered in the private sector. The warning from those higher-ups is that the US will develop a 2-tier medical care delivery system, which means that those with private insurance will get the best care possible, and the rest of us in the government program will get some sort of substandard care. I have news: That's been happening for years. Most of the poor and working class are used to it. Most of the recipients are just thankful that they were not kicked out onto the sidewalk and left to die.
10. It is possible is for a public entity to compete with a private one just like the Post Service competes with Fed Ex. Some will choose the public option. Some will choose the private option. The Postal Service does not run Fed Ex out of business. If we tax health care benefits, which Obama opposes, the tax burden is on the employee, not employer. The health care benefit is treated as income and the employer sets aside the tax for the employee. Although the employee has to pay a tax under the proposal, the employer has no real cost incentive to drop the insurance and the employee will not drop his insurance because the tax is not high enough to switch to the public option.