In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.

So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

--
Wafa free since 2009