Have We Ever Had A Discussion Here About The Ramifications Of Doing Away With Health Insurance .....

[global1]

companies?

How many people does the Health Insurance Industry employ? How many would lose their jobs if we passed a government run, universal, single payer system?

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm asking a legitimate question here. Let me be more specific. Now I'm sure that it wouldn't shut down the whole industry as there would always be need for all kinds of supplemental plans.

But - what would be the fallout if this happened. What would be the impact on the economy? What would be the impact on Wall Street?

I'm mean overnight you just can't put an industry out of business. There have to be some consequences.

I would think that many of those employed by the industry now could maybe switch over to government positions. Certainly there would be increased employment opportunities to manage a government run program.

Beyond that - is there anything in the HCR bill that will call for standardization of insurance forms? Right now every company has there own format and body of forms. It causes all kinds of problems for providers to have to deal with the variety and complexity. It would seem to me that it would make sense to standardize on a set of forms for all companies in the industry. It might even cut out some administrative overhead that we are having to pay for.

Is there any provision in the HCR bill to standardize documentation?

[Oregone]

1. Im against lightbulbs. Itll put candle makers out of business

[Generic Other]

2. Let's say you had to submit all your purchases through a private company

who had the power to determine whether you were authorized to spend your own money. Let's say that industry employed millions of people to oversee your purchases. And suppose they charge you. Do you really NEED this extra hand to touch your cash if it costs you extra money? Why should they profit off you beyond a set amount--say 5 cents out of every dollar? The rest is yours. They need to spend it on your needs not theirs.

I am all for cutting out the middlemen who simply skim every cent they can swindle us out of for their own gain. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for their "plight." Maybe they can stand on street corners and beg for spare change. Like they have made the sick and dying do in this country.

[Tailormyst]

3. Many could switch to gov job in the same area

and frankly, employers could afford to hire more people if they didn't have healthcare costs that have been strangling them.

[cutlassmama]

10. Exactly. They'd most likely be hired by the Government because of their previous

claims experience.

[kenny blankenship]

4. It would be cheaper to give them all unemployment for 10 yrs than to keep this bloated monster alive

i don't get it. People say nothing about throwing the auto manufacturers into the dustbin of history, other manufacturing sectors can also go to Hell, but as soon as some financial sector workers are threatened -mind you this is an industry that produces nothing at all, nothing but misery- suddenly we get all solicitous about the loss of American jobs.

It's a headscratcher.

[laughingliberal]

5. HR 676 contained language to ease the transition of the workers at the health insurance companies

into the government run, single payer system. Switching to single payer would be a shift of a lot of the workers from their present company to a government job. Most of them (we're talking the wage slaves, here) would probably be better off. I'm not thinking they have great retirement plans where they are.

There might be some fallout which would impact the overall economy but I think the amount, if any, would be far less than what we will see with the legislation we are on the verge of passing.

[lurky]

6. A few hundred thousand work directly for the health insurance

industry. I dug up the numbers a few months ago. It was a significant number, but far, far less than we have lost in the automotive industry in the past year, for example.

Balance that with the number of new jobs created by a public health system, and we may come out even or ahead. Who knows...

[laughingliberal]

8. Then balance it further with lowering the cost of employing people and some jobs might open up at

companies not able to hire. Add in the fact that workers would actually get paid real wages instead of having their gains eaten up by health care costs and money starts to flow in the economy again. It would benefit every sector except...well... we know who' benefits from doing it this way

[lurky]

12. That makes too much sense. Therefore it can't happen.

Sad but true, it seems.

[T Wolf]

7. Not really necessary because any sane person knows that abolishing the insurance

parasites would greatly improve medical care with only minor downsides.

There have also been few, if any discussions about whether more efficient/alternate fuel cars should be built. I guess it is safe to throw gs station owners and pump jockeys (NJ) under the bus...

[BR_Parkway]

9. My concern there would have been ins co's dumping people right away

and creating total chaos that would be blamed on the Dems for 'messing it all up'. Putting Soc Security in place was simpler because there was nothing there before - and many people were excluded that eventually got added to make it a universal program.

As it is, I'm wondering how the health insurance companies could use voter rolls to selectively cancel policies between now and 2014 to create that same kind of chaos. I think they'd love to see the Repubs back in power so they could vote even more in their favor under the guise of fixing the bill (think Medicare Drug program giveaway). Easiest way to do that is to jack up rates and/or cancel policies on registered Independents to create a feeling of backlash against the Dems

[MissMarple]

11. Any sudden change will cause a lot of pain, health insurance, the tax code....a lot of pain.

I usually support gradual change, sudden changes can make one hell of a mess to clean up. But, it happens, then we have to deal with it. :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

13. that has got to be one of the worst reasons to not change this system

when we know a government plan would save tons of cash and those getting denied would actually receive healthcare.

Keeping Americans dependent on corruption just makes me ill.

[pitohui]

14. i have to die so you can keep your job? what's to discuss? then you are a vulture

if something is wrong, it doesn't matter that putting a stop to "doing something wrong" causes the people who were doing something wrong to have to get new jobs -- people who are doing wrong should NEVER be allowed to profit from wrong doing, NEVER, what can be more disruptive to society than the fact that so many of us die years early (the world wide stats showing how far behind we are other countries in life expectancy can't be denied)

the health insurance industry kills people, if you work in that industry, then you are profiting from killing people and having them die younger than they would under competing systems, you should think about getting honest work but if you won't voluntarily find honest work because dishonest work pays better then at some point the gov't needs to shut you down

i believe this -- the insurance industry should be shut down, universal care should be provided for all, and people who formerly worked in the industry should be re-trained to do something useful

you do not have a right to take money forever for hurting people

what's to discuss??? any time society changes, somebody has to get a new job, the buggy whip manufacturers weren't happy about the auto industry, who fucking cares...

no one has a moral right to a job, if the cost of the job is another person's very life

don't worry, none of this will happen will soon anyway