To all those out there who are up in arms over the specter that we might actually drive the health care vampires out of business if we have a public option, I'd love to hear why you think it's such a great thing to have a bunch of middlemen taking a cut of the profit from people's health problems. If you have an opinion now's your chance to explain why you think for-profit-health-insurance companies are something other than a drain on society.

That's a good question. They are the reason so many people are suffering now because they can't afford these companies anymore. These insurance companies don't give a damn about anyone's healthcare or saving them money. All that matters to them are their profits. And they also don't seem to understand the insurance companies are already controlling their health care. "Denied" is one of their favorite words. I've also noticed people just looooove their insurance company until they can't afford them anymore or they get dropped for being too risky. It's then that they understand WHY reform is needed, and not the kind we got.

"Health care vampires" is an excellent description.

The OP clearly botched the entire opposition in the first few sentences. It's not about protecting the insurance companies. The Public Option IS a middle man. If you want to cut out the middle man, then we have to go back to paying out of our pockets for all medical services. You can't say you're against the middle man and then go and support a public option. That's just talking out both sides of your mouth.

It just baffles me how people who are so quick to hate on these insurance companies, perhaps not without good reason, are so quick to embrace going to a government run option. As if the government won't be a worse beast yet. The public option is just replacing many middlemen with one bigger, stronger, and meaner middleman.

So yeah, why do we need a healthcare middleman? Because people can't pay for medical services out of pocket. That's why. The Public Option is the same middleman as the insurance companies. It just baffles me how much trust people place in an irresponsible government. lol If we really have an issue with the middleman, we sure as hell wouldn't go to a public option. The fact that some propose it just makes me think that problems with the middleman is just more BS.

I'd like to hear it too.

Do any of you remember when a GP came to your house (house call)?

Quote :

HMOs' Rise Driven by Government, Not Market
By Twila Brase
March 29, 1999

Dissatisfaction with HMOs has led some to call for increased regulation of the HMO industry. Government officials express concern for patient protection and access to health care. Yet government action did much to encourage the spread of HMOs'and government action continues to steer people into HMOs.

HMO Act of 1973
Unbeknownst to most, Congress has essentially mandated managed care for everyone. In response to escalating costs in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, Congress looked to HMOs for assistance.

In 1973, it passed the HMO Act which offered government subsidies to HMOs and gave nonlicensed HMO executives the power to challenge the medical judgment of licensed physicians.

The Act also mandated that all businesses with more than 25 employees offer HMOs as a health care option. Until then, most employers, fearing increased costs and utilization, had avoided HMOs.

States Force People Into Managed Care
During the early 1980's, Congress began allowing states, through Medicaid Section 1115 waivers, to herd Medicaid recipients against their will into managed care programs. By June 1996, over 40 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries were enrolled in managed care plans.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) touts the waivers as providing "states with the much-needed flexibility to develop innovative solutions." That flexibility, however, violates federal Medicaid law, which prohibits limits on treatment or choice of doctor.

HMOs Gain Solid Ground
In 1995, Congress repealed the employer mandate, but by then, HMOs had already gained a solid position in the medical marketplace. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration, the percentage of working Americans with private insurance enrolled in managed care rose from 29 percent in 1988 to over 50 percent in 1997.

Who Benefits From HMOs?
By mandating managed care for some patient groups, and by passing legislation allowing HMOs to deny care, the government has assured maximum profit for HMOs, with little risk. Public officials profit politically by promising "free" health care. Managed care allows politicians to promise health care without actually guaranteeing access to it.

Americans are rightly concerned about managed care. However, in public policy as in medicine, proper diagnosis precedes proper treatment. Proposals to increase the regulation of HMOs stem from an incorrect diagnosis. Government- directed managed care is not the cure; individual choice is.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD172/RGSD172.ch1.pdf