Yes. Individual, non-group policies.
As I stated previously, between individual policies becoming illegal and the unfair advantage the gov. plans will have, the writing is on the wall for private insurance.
I still contend that the government plan(s) will not have an unfair advantage, but I understand your point, in general. I do wish that an official amendment would be made so we had more to base this on than a months-old proposition. I have two questions, though:
If the government plans were definitively not included — that is, say, the bill contained a provision that it was illegal for the government to provide health insurance directly — are you still opposed? I realize that this is theoretical; I'm just trying to see where else you sit, ignoring that particular issue.
Also, on one hand, you say that the government is incapable of providing good resources: FEMA, Medicare, etc. On the other hand, you say that the government health plan will be so good that it will totally destroy any other private option. Those seem like opposing viewpoints to me. Can you explain?
the existing policies won't get cancelled, so those people are all set.
That is naive as hell to say. Suppose you move out of state or wish to change your coverage? Well you're on the government plan then because you can't have a new private policy. People
do change plans or at least they used to be permitted to do so.
That's a fair point. I'd totally be down with making it legal to provide individual plans to those who currently have individual plans. Basically grandfather those people permanently.
Previous Topic
Index
