But worse, a public option would soon be overwhelmed with the sickest (most costly) residents. Why? Because insurance companies compete by discarding the sickest residents (while marketing to the healthiest), a public option would quickly shift even more of the costs of our sickest residents to taxpayers, while freeing insurance companies to compete for healthier (more profitable) residents.
We eventually pay for everyone's health care anyway
The government already funds more than 60% of all health care spending. We taxpayers already pay a lot for "other people's" health care. Tax subsidies for private insurance alone cost taxpayers nearly $200 billion a year. We taxpayers give insurance companies about $100 billion a year to provide health care for public employees (such as teachers and police officers).
We all pay when uninsured residents must use expensive emergency rooms. In most cases, had they been given regular preventative care, they would have required much less total health care and thus cost us much less.
An Institute of Medicine study says 18,000 of us pay with our lives each year because we lack health insurance-a shining example of how private health care "saves taxpayers money" (this is simply smart business).
An American Journal of Medicine study says 62% of all bankruptcies (about two million a year) are linked to medical bills (80% had health insurance). When we count the excessive burden our absurd private health care system adds to all businesses, and other such hidden costs, single-payer would be much less expensive and provide much better care (exactly what other countries with single-payer systems have experienced).
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
3
