Just because you don't profit doesn't mean you can't be creating perverse incentives... It's almost like you have no regard at all for the issues...
Look, rather then spell out how GJ is talking crap about government insurance programs with nothing to back it up I'll just give this page with links on good information:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/private-vs-public-health-care-cost-control-faq/
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
Odd, the vast majority of that "proof" comes down to either "The CBO sez", as if the CBO has ever been near the mark on long term healthcare costs, or "Medicare is cheaper than private alternatives", as if I'm somehow advocating for "Everyone should have private health insurance!". Now, let's look at this from another angle.
Who pays for healthcare?
So... "private insurance" and Medicare. Both of which I just spent an entire post ranting about, the former in particular.
Now, let's compare healthcare costs to the CPI.
Curious. It seems to decouple in the 1970s, as things such as the
HMO Act are passed. Hmmm, I wonder if people being totally disconnected from the expenses has any chance of making them spend more for less? Nah, things like "logic" aren't needed for healthcare reform!
I guess "facts" have a "liberal bias" when half of them are unreliable and the other half are irrelevant.
You know, this argument is starting to sound really familiar. Perhaps it's because we've had this exact same argument many times before, and you don't bother reading my criticisms of the present system and instead spit out "Generic Comebackatron Response 256" to "Generic Conservative Argument 212". I would have thought you'd have picked at least some of it up at this point, even if you still disagreed.
But that wouldn't be a problem if the insurance companies weren't effectively the only game in town.
So you think that the government has to start providing a robust alternative to the insurance companies in order to provide valid competition? I completely agree.
Yet government provided healthcare has the exact same problems, again, except the cost is even more diffuse and the government isn't going to hobble itself with regulations relating to coverage. I'd say as a first step the government has to basically toss out the many, many regulations and laws regarding insurance coverage for healthcare, be they mandates that they MUST cover x, y, z (which causes them to cease being insurance companies and makes them third party providers) or mandates/subsidies/etc for employer provided healthcare. Obviously this wouldn't solve every problem, but it would improve things quite a lot. Were insurance only used in drastic circumstances, Americans would have a reason NOT to pay for insanely overpriced, mildly improved medication and would shop around, allowing costs to drop. Insurance providers would have to be far more competitive in terms of coverage, and more dynamic plans would reduce rejections for payouts in drastic circumstances even for those with preexisting conditions, since mandates presently basically make it complete coverage or none. The US pharmaceutical industry would still be a mess, the public-ish plans like Medicare and Medicaid would still be pretty expensive and certain other areas would be lacking, but it would be vastly improved from the present system.