The cost to companies certainly is a concern and we will likely experience inflated prices as a result, but we were already paying for this in our insurance premiums and cost of medical care, since we still pay for the uninsured anyway by getting their costs passed on to us. As i said, in theory insurance costs should go down in part due to a larger payment base and competition with government backed policies. I am more worried that companies and insurance providers will instead use this as an excuse to raise prices to line their pockets while scapegoating the government. I am actually for a more socialized medicine, a la France or great Britain, but many americans seem scared by this, so we work with what we have. It is a tough issue that we still have a lot to navigate through. Time will tell whether desire for profit succeeds over national health. What do you think we should do?

My friend, who is more knowledgeable than I, said that the government sponsored option will be the cheapest available policy and thus will provide competition to the other policies causing them to lower the premium to compete with the cheaper policy. The wider base provides more money just by the ammount of policy holders and theoretically should offset the increased number of claims. Once again, we will see if this happens. I for one woukd rather see the socialized plan to know how much i am paying, through taxes, and have the ability to hold the government accountable through voting. The british seem to love their system and are making a good go of it, but we would be larger and more complex, so who knows. We just need to seriously consider all options and discuss/vote on them. Only time will tell.

I am not sure myself, going on what my friend said. He is writing a paper on the healthcare bill for a law review and he is informing me on the basics of the bill. Very interesting.

What should we do? I don’t know. For starters we have to discuss it honestly and fairly–which you are. (Thank you.)
As I said earlier, I agree about the fact that we all pay for the uninsured anyway.
I don’t see how the larger payment base really helps in this case, but maybe I’m overlooking something.
Not sure about how this increases competition either.
One concern I have is that insurance cost will actually be driven up by the fact that everyone has to have it. Requiring people to have insurance increases demand. Normaly the demand curve goes to zero as the price increases but now that cannot happen.

If I may inject myself into the discussion. A substantive and serious conversation must first begin with an accurate description of the problem free from exaggeration. I would take exception of your description of our society as one which lets the uninsured die due to lack of treatment. And before you react, let me add that I speak as one who has experience our system for the uninsured. I was in a catastrophic accident which nearly claimed my life and left it completely and irreversibly changed. I must also add that I had no health insurance at the time. Not once was I ever declined coverage or care based on that fact. I have not been thrown out of my home despite amassing nearly a million dollars in medical bills. I have received the best care from dedicated and caring professionals. Health care providers have bent over backwards to help, at times writing off their entire bill.

Do we have problems to fix in our health care system. Yes, most definitely. However, any solution must begin with a complete and accurate definition of the problem. I will say that one of the main problems is that the average consumer has been separated from the costs of the service. There are market driven solutions which have been offered which would go a long way to fixing that problem by introducing competition thus driving down everyone’s costs.

I agree with this post, but what I was saying was even more basic.
One way or another everyone’s healthcare gets payed for by someone. Whether an insurance company pays or the patient pays out of pocket or the governement pays or health care provider pays and passes the cost onto others or if the provider simply does it for free and reduces the profits of its owners, someone pays.
Now I beleive that the total cost can be changed by a change in the system. Also even if the total cost is unchanged I thing some systems proportion that cost more fairly that others.
But claims that a particular reform will radically increase the total cost of healthcare should be regarded with scepticm until someone explains why the total cost will increase.
I actually think some systems could do this by either being inefficiecnt or dragging down the economy or making some people less healthy, but its more complicated than saying: if everyone gets coverage then cost must go up.

Yes, I did in fact misunderstand your comment. Thank you for clarifying.