The headline presupposes that those companies aren't currently selling cut-rate, shoddy insurance.

To be fair, the LA Times has shown itself to be pretty anti-insurance company in the past (and not necessarily in the "investigative journalism uncovers the truth" sort of way).

I'm not saying what the article claims is false, but it should just be taken with a grain of salt.

One of the main regulations being considered is that insurance companies would not be able to turn people down who have pre-existing conditions. The reason companies currently turn them down is they don't want people to go without insurance and then sign up for it when they need it.

The only way to make it fair for the insurance companies to do this would be to mandate that people have to sign up for it. Can you imagine how much car insurance would be if people only bought it when they had a car accident? The same would happen to health insurance.

Having worked in the insurance industry for a while, I can categorically say that they are absolutely incented to not pay out any penny more than they could possibly get away with.

Which really, if you think about it, makes sense from the business side of the endeavor.

The issue is running an in-the-black company while paying out compassionately for any and all health claims. That's not as easy as flipping a switch, and I do think (should something come along to enforce a more all-encompassing payment scheme) it could raise rates. They count on paying out as little as possible, and that helps the insurers make their rates as competitive as possible. Forcing them to pay out more means they'll have to bring more in.

The fundamental problem is that the issue of money-in and money-out is pure math. And pure math has no compassion. What we want from our insurers is compassion, and trying to unify compassion with math is no mean feat.

Of course! This is another bail out for the insurance companies who want to make $ just like the big banks did. They'll charge the government (read taxpayers) trillions of $ and we'll get less service than we already do. And when we complain, we'll complain to the government and the insurance companies and health care providers will just grin and say it's not our fault. Then we'll all have to buy private health care (aka private schools) to get actual health care. This will be in addition to the public health care, which we won't be able to stop, because once it's in place we can't pull the plug because people are now dependant on it. I hope the Internet can wake people up to this money grab before it's too late. But sadly, the amount of money being spent to sell this plan may be too much for even the internet to stop.

@PunditGuy: RIGHT ON!

@YouDidWhatNow?: Which is why for-profit insurance simply cannot work.

This is why we a) should be going to single-payer (fully socialized insurance) instead, or b) should have the public option at the very least so that we can ditch them if necessary.

@YouDidWhatNow?: You hit on the primary point in there. "makes sense from the business side of the endeavor." Insurance is a business...as is health care. Whatever we may want from insurance or health care, we must remember that very few people do things purely out of the goodness of their heart. Insurance companies are in it for the money...and they have a lot of overhead (employees, location, equipment) before profit even comes in. Given that most companies are also stock bases, they also have to answer to shareholders who expect a return. While individuals may want to be generous, it's not that easy.

@johnva: Couldn't agree more!

@catskyfire: @catskyfire: Oy. Last couple of years premiums up 300% executive compensation up 1000%...why why why.....doesn't have anything to do with executive pay being based on profit (denying as much stuff as humanly possible) does it??

@morlo:

...not-for-profit would have the same problem. You can't have more dollars go out than you bring in. Even in a purely mutual insurance company, the primary incentive is still to have the biggest reserves possible.

Is this what insurance industry lobbyist Tom Daschle is whispering into Obama's ear?

@johnva:

...I think having the option is important. Regarding fully socialized medicine, all I can comment on is Canada, which is where my wife is from. I don't know any of our friends/family in Canada who think overly highly of their system. Basically, it works - that seems to be the best that can be said. They have their shares of horror stories, and it can take forever to try to get a family practitioner. But none of them, by any stretch of the imagination, would hold that system up as any kind of gold standard.

One arguement I often hear about a government program is that the admin costs would be so low. For example Medicare only has a 3% admin cost. This is misleading. The only people on Medicare are those who are over 65 or are disabled. These people typically have higher claims costs than most. If both need $50 to process a claim, Medicare's admin cost will be lower because the claims they are processing on average are som much higher.

p.s. yes, I do work for an insurance company but we are ean ntity of county government and deal only with public programs.

ProTip: Big business loves big government, and big government loves big business.

Any health reform without a government-run insurance option is BS. Government subsidies to allow individuals to buy private health insurance is a HUGE handout to private business--nothing more than a way for them to get even more profits while denying care.

I don't understand why anyone trusts government so much that they would actually let them have at their healthcare! Simply put, there are three things to "fix" our current healthcare problem
1. TORT REFORM
2. FREE-MARKET COMPETITION THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES
3. TORT REFORM

Socialism in any form us never the answer.

@vastrightwing: Which they can do, because government controls keep them from competing in a number of ways, most notably, across state lines.

Another example of the unintended negative consequences of the proposed "health care reform" plan.

@captadam:

Again, you can't tell insurance companies that they have to take everyone regardless of health, if there aren't incentives for people to buy it while they are healthy. Would you rather give incentives to insurance companies or penalize people who don't buy it.

Here in MN, all insurance companies are not-for-profit, by law. United Healthcare is based here but they cannot sell in MN as they are for profit. The major carriers here in MN all have admin ratios of less than 10%. That means at least 90 cents of every dollar is spent on claims. That is pretty good.

@johnva:

This is why we a) should be going to single-payer (fully socialized insurance) instead, or b) should have the public option at the very least so that we can ditch them if necessary.

@Bahnburner: How much government would you like me to trim for you? Seriously, the big government argument is so old and useless...

I especially love it when Repubican congressmen or presidential candidates go around talking about the government being "too big". It's like you want less government? Fine. Quit. Problem solved.

@ferris209:

Could not agree more. The fear of lawsuits is a major factor in rising health costs. Doctors are afraid of lawsuits so they go overboard on the amount of tests they do.

@YouDidWhatNow?: But compared to ours, it's amazing. What's better? The richest of our society getting great care and the majority getting nothing, or, the majority getting rather decent care and in the event of something excessive you have a longer wait? People always say "OMG, Canadians die more from cancer then we do!!!" or something along that line. Except, when they get sick, they get to go see a doc and get a script.

Since, in the past 10 years of being uninsured I've gotten a flu/cold/ingrown toenail/etc much more then cancer, I'd rather have the majority paid for for free and worry about the latter when it happens to me. I shouldn't have to play the "Over The Counter" game for every non lethal sickness/pain because I can't afford insurance yet make too much for Medicare.

@John Gage: Agreed. If insurance companies are prohibited from underwriting (aka no pre-existing conditions), then the government must require everyone to get health insurance. The only way to appropriately spread the risk/cost of the sickest (diabetics, those with cancer, etc. that would presently fail underwriting) is to sign on all the "young invincibles" who are much more attractive from a COHC (cost of health care) perspective.

@YouDidWhatNow?: "Basically, it works - that seems to be the best that can be said."

Know what you can say about the US Healthcare? It doesn't work for a LOT of people.

I know too many people who hurt themselves or get sick and can't even see a doctor.

@ferris209: Yes, because insurance companies have totally been trustworthy. lololololol

I love when people say, "You don't want the government to have that much control over your life!!"

Sorry to break it to ya, bub, but insurance companies have a much bigger hold on you than the gov't would.

@sicknick: As a currently-insured person, who's an independent on the political scene, I'm against paying for someone else's healthcare. So, I'm pretty much against socialized healthcare. My question is, will there be tax incentives/breaks for those of us that DO pay for our own healthcare? I know there's a lot of things I don't specifically benefit from, but pay for through taxes, but those are usually kind of intangibles. But this is something pretty darned tangible.

@YouDidWhatNow?: And, "it works" would generally be a good reason, too. It's much better than "it doesn't work at all" as pattiesmith said, but we have SO MANY MORE people than every other country we're using as a measuring stick. I have to agree with you when you ask what makes us think, given our unique set of circumstances, that we'll do any better. It seems we've already got the deck stacked against us. Not that we shouldn't look for a way to help those that are unable to provide for themselves, but this whole apples and not-oranges-per-se-but-definitely-not-apples comparison stuff isn't convincing me, either.

@ferris209: It's "us vs. them" statism. People advocating large government in health care are the same people that were screaming when Bush was expanding government powers. They truly believe that if it's "us" in power and not "them", there's no issue at all. They're often totally oblivious to the fact that government is run just like business is run - by normal people that often have bad days, that sometimes have grudges and are sometimes petty, and that generally don't always do the right thing day in and day out at their jobs for whatever reason: personal issues, laziness, health, whatever. (In fact, since government doesn't have to compete at anything, there's a drive towards complacency by government employees. Sure, the politicians can be removed by the people if they don't agree with the direction, but can your ordinary government employee? If we don't innovate at my job, we close business. If they don't innovate in government, they just take more taxes and keep on running.)

People often forget this is the same government that failed the people during Hurricane Katrina. This is the same government that falsely imprisoned thousands of Japanese in internment camps in WW2. This is the same government that allowed the Plessy vs Ferguson decision to stay on the books for over 50 years allowing segregation. It doesn't matter if it was "us" or "them" running the country. Government fails the people more than they would like to believe, and no amount of "us" running the country will change that.

Yeah, we did that tort reform thing here in Texas. The result is that health insurance and malpractice insurance had double digit increases in premiums, and we got a nice 7-10% increase in treatment related deaths that were avoidable. So, lets see, insurance went up for both the insured and the doctors, more people died because doctors stopped giving a damn about their mistakes, and now if some cracked out surgeon amputates the wrong leg, you get at most 250,000 k. Great idea there, with the tort reform and all.

@thompson: I'm assuming the "Left Coast Times" refers to the LA Times. And I don't think newspapers tend toward the center of politics. EVER. So, I take EVERYTHING media-related, left or right, with a bag of rock salt...not just a grain of that wussy table stuff.

@ferris209: The US Military has the best healthcare in the world, why not trust them in that regard?

@madog: I'm not sure about the whole world, but it is the best in the country.

@RogerTheAlien: "I'm against paying for someone else's healthcare"

As someone who doesn't drive, I'm against paying for other people's roads, highways, and subsidized gasoline. As someone who hates nature, I'm against paying for other people's parks and greenspace. As someone who doesn't read, I'm against paying for other people's schools and libraries....and on, and on, and on...

Sometimes you just have to accept that your tax dollars are going to go towards something that benefits society as a whole, not just yourself personally. Besides, assuming that you yourself don't get sick, would you rather have the money you're paying in insurance premiums go towards helping sick people, or into the profit margins of your insurance company? The choice is pretty clear to me.

@pattiesmart: So misinformed...

No one insurance company can have any more power over me than I let them have. I can always change providers. I can even get health care without insurance. Ultimately, I am in control. If you're complaining about a lack of options, you can blame that on increased government regulation and control.

When we give government more power, though, you can't just opt out. If the private insurer denies my claims, I can just find another one. I can even pay for the health care out of pocket. But most socialist health care systems won't let you do that because it's not "fair" - so instead of letting someone with the money save their own life with treatment, the government would rather they die so that the system doesn't provide unequal treatment.

Most of all, government health care requires violence against the citizens to keep it running. If I don't want to pay for your health care, the government will come take those taxes by force. Through no violent action of my own, just a decision to not pay, my freedom will be taken just to provide health care to someone else. The ends just don't justify the means.

What we need to do is eliminate the barriers that prevent us from really being able to choose health care plans and create more freedom in the market - not contract the market to a single provider and then hope that one plan fits all the best.

I never had a problem with my health insurance. When my daughter needed surgery years ago they paid out over $26,000...I had a heart attack...$41,000 in hospital bills and my wife just had major surgery...at most it will cost me $1500. I pay quite a bit each month but it's worth it to me. All you others...stop whining.

@madog: Why do you assume that a program that works for around 3 million people will automatically scale to 300 million? That's a serious change in logistics.

@spincycle0: One plan failed, therefore, we should never try at all, right?

Would you be willing to accept that when we do go with government health care? If the plan fails once, should we stop forever and go back to private market insurance?

@YouDidWhatNow?: Except with non-profit insurance, the goal is fixed. Expenditures can't exceed income. With for-profit insurance, they will deny the maximum possible to make the maximum possible profit. If they could get away with paying out zero claims, they would. A non-profit actually concerned with patient health (and not executive salaries or something like that) will maximize the benefits they can pay out with the money they have.

@YOXIM: One trillion dollars would be a start. No unfunded mandates. Balanced budget in five years. Reduce subsidies and entitlement programs. Quit bailing out and taking over industries. Stop pouring billions into useless wars around the globe. That's a start. I really love it too, when politicians talk about government being "too big" Most of them are lying.

I just have to respond to the short sightedness of The Flamingo King. The statement that

"No one insurance company can have any more power over me than I let them have. I can always change providers."

Clearly shows me that you are a young and healthy person who has not had to deal with any significant medical issues.

"I can even get health care without insurance." Again, clearly no experience with multi thousand dollar expenses.

"Most of all, government health care requires violence against the citizens to keep it running. If I don't want to pay for your health care, the government will come take those taxes by force." - This one actually scares me a bit.

Here's the thing guys - I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 38. At the time I had a 5 year old and a 17 month old and thank GOD insurance. I had radiation, surgery and 12 rounds of chemotherapy that added up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can tell you that were it not for my health insurance I would be dead.

That being said I will be staying in the job I have for as long as they will have me because purchasing insurance on my own is incredibly difficult three year later. Most companies will not touch me and those who will consider $1,500 per month with a $5,000 deductible and 50% co-pay to be reasonable. And that is for individual coverage.

The day that it was decided that health insurance companies were supposed to be profit based was a dark dark day for our society. Somehow all of the other countries of developed world are able to do this and they haven't been destroyed. But not the good old USA huh?

@mizike: I love your logic!
I would also like to add that I have pretty good insurance and I still have to wait at least an hour or more sometimes when I visit the clinics here. It's not only our insurance that will have to change, it's the service.

@Traveshamockery: I'm sorry, are you implying that countries with single payer health care have worse systems than we do?

Consumer Reports disagrees.

Everyone seems to forget that this proposed reform is about introducing another option; simply because they are putting legislation together that legalizes a single-payer option does not make it mandatory. It's an opt-in program; has been from the beginning. Just because the gov't puts something together doesn't make it mandatory; they take it from the taxes of those who participate, if memory serves correctly.

@TheFlamingoKing: No, if the insurance company denies your claims you are left with the bill. You can't go to another company and have them pay it for you. Also you will have now have a pre-existing condition and you will be denied coverage.

@mizike: That's why I said there were things, intangibles usually, that I pay for without having benefit, and I'm fine with that. It's part of the overall betterment of society and all the feelgood jazz. No problemo. But "fixing" a problem where a large chunk (maybe not the majority, but not a vast minority by any means) are doing just fine and will only end up losing money on the deal doesn't seem...fair to me. But I agree that I'd rather NOT like the pockets of insurance companies who deny obviously needy people who HAVE paid for it.

@pattiesmart:

How about instead of socializing health-care, we just socialize the legal system surrounding it? Would that make you happy? I'm not just into socializing anything, I mean, many U.S. soldiers have died protecting our freedoms, we'd might well enjoy them rather than give them away.