2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why the for profit model of health insurance is so much better than a non-profit option would be.  What can it offer me as a consumer that I would not be getting if I opted to go with a non-profit?  My small understanding of free market pricipals is that the consumer will drive prices down because they will go with the best and least expensive model, thus creating price wars.  The problem with putting health insurance in the free market is that the insurers hold the cards.  The consumer frankly does not have choice once they have seen a doctor for any condition that merits a flag - even minor conditions - they are denied coverage or given options with very high deductibles.  How does this drive competion?  I have my own opinions as to the morality of putting profit in health care, but it seems to me the agrument can be broken down into much more concrete, dollars and cents (sense) issues.

Nancy

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context