Does anyone have a real argument against non-profit health insurance?
Universal health INSURANCE administered by a federally chartered non-profit corporation would relieve employers of paying for health INSURANCE for their employees. As many employers are dropping such coverage anyway, not to mention dropping many of their employees we're going to have to do something. We'd better cut the best deal we can to provide the greatest good for the greatest number or land up no good for anyone. Let's not hear arguments against 'socialized medicine' or 'government health CARE'. Stick with non- profit UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
- Julius SLv 51 decade agoBest Answer
Medicare is a universal single payer system that includes ALL Americans over 65. People chose their own doctors and the Government doesn't assume decision making. Overhead cost is 3%.
John Conyers' H.R. 676 - is a favorite of health care reformers who back a single-payer system. This plan would expand Medicare for all Americans.
The bill, which will again be H.R. 676, is one of the more elegant to be introduced in the House, clocking in at just a few pages.
The plan is simple: everyone is eligible for a version of Medicare under a new U.S. National Health Insurance Program.
The program would effectively put private insurers out of business. What to do with all those employees? Hire them, says Conyers' bill.
"The Program shall provide that clerical, administrative, and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors offices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration (1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and (2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits."
Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last introduced his bill, which garnered 93 cosponsors, in February 2007. It was referred to committee but never given a hearing.Source(s): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR006... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZbAwrycIc0 http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=File...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
One of your answerers wrote that it was a bad idea because "it would be run by bureaucrats, not by doctors."
The last I knew, doctors run medical practices. "Insurance professions" run insurance companies. "Insurance professional" is a buzz word for private sector bureaucrat.
I have nothing against non-profit and not-for-profit insurance. I think a universal pool of applicants would truly be the most effective way to bring premiums down. Yes, all the sick people would be in the same pool as all the most healthy people, but the cost would be shared for all.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Many of these answers are complete and utter BS. Medicare is a universal single payer system that includes ALL Americans over 65. . People chose their own doctors and the Government hasn't taken over decision making. Works very well for the most part. Can be extended to cover everyone.
- 1 decade ago
How about this?
100% of your health-insurance decisions can be made in only 1 of 2 possible ways
a) Voluntarily, as in by simple consent or contract.
b) By force, threat of violence or actual violence..
I choose A. Why do you choose B?
Universal health INSURANCE administered by a federally chartered non-profit corporation would relieve YOU of having any options.
The best deal we can cut is NOT the same for you as it is for me. One of us is demanding the other be FORCED into a "common plan." The other supports Americanism.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE means YOU are prevented from ever making even a trivial health care decision on your own behalf since it will be the mission of a bureaucracy to determine how best to AVOID spending money. Since I assume you are not profoundly retarded, there is a 100% chance you KNOW that with a "single payer" you will certainly NOT be allowed to make your own choices - that payer will make them.
When you go to a restaurant, do you get angry about getting a menu? Do you demand they just bring you what they think you should have? Then you don't really want what you claim to. Stop advocating it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- fangtaiyangLv 71 decade ago
The problem is health insurance. Health insurance does not provide health care. It helps to pay for health care. It would be more efficient to have a single payer system that paid for health care directly
- 1 decade ago
I'm not against *non-profit* or *for-profit* insurance corps, as long as the government is not involved.
The government can't even manage a simple bailout without screwing it up (wasting billions), not mention how the government screwed up social security and every other major program they try to run.
The government is inefficient and wasteful, that is just a fact of life.
- consrgreatLv 71 decade ago
Because then it is run by BUREAUCRATS instead of DOCTORS....look at other nations....3 week wait for a broken hip replacement....and many other HORROR stories...meds denied because the COMPANY decided it was to costly....PLEASE the for profit system DOES work....take the DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS out of the equations with their frivolous malpractice law suits...limit punitive awards and watch costs DROP like a rock
- TJ9Lv 41 decade ago
That sounds like a good idea, why would anyone be opposed?
- 1 decade ago
Just remember: you get what you pay for.