...and I'd like a serious answer for it. Actually, it's really two questions in one:

Why is it the responsibility of the health insurance industry to make sure that everyone is provided with services from the healthcare industry and why is it their fault that medical care has become so expensive?

It just seems to me that the root problem in all of this is not the insurance industry as they are allowing us to attain service we could not afford on our own, but largely in the healthcare industry.

Can someone give me a serious, non-partisan, non-theinsuranceindustryisgreedy bickering type answer?

Answer... It is not their responsibility.

The only responsibility for the INSURANCE industry is to provide us with a reasonable product (insurance) while still making sufficient profit to remain a viable part of the market place.

Question back...

Why are there so many claims that the insurance industry is spending millions to lobby congress when the truth is that (although they are) the opponents to the insurance industry are spending BILLIONS to run negative adds (in an apperant attempt to lobby US)point out how much money their opponents are spending.

Misdirection.

The answer is...everyone is greedy: insurance industry and healthcare industry. I don't believe the insurance industry is innocent...its all about profit for them too and they've charged ridiculous amounts for services through the years....jmo

medical services and supplies should be regulated not everyone who needs medical services are able to get help they need as i just watched the news its nice to know where our taxes are going

Insurance innocent... Please, insurance is a ripoff from the get.

But we buy it so...

the actual truth as I see it here is that all the opposing views are a smoke screen.

the politicians will continue to do what the politicians have planned and jack us all into indentured servitude while they live lives of spendor.

The true redistribution of wealth... From your pocket to the pockets of those that think they govern.

with a pittance to the bottom layer to keep them quiet!

Thing is, insurance (as actual insurance anyway, not what this bill will make it) is a necessary evil. not many of us can afford healthcare without it, and while for many like myself where premiums add up to more than the care received, the companies love us - we are getting ripped off. but what about that one time you really need it and the bill is $20k? Then what? Is it still a ripoff?

Have you ever added up how much you actuall SPEND to get that measelly 20,000?

Yeah its a ripoff.

I dont know if it is their fault medical care is expensive but I know that INSURANCE is expensive and that medical costs are charged HIGHER to those without insurance, than they are to the insurance companies themselves. Meanwhile, they get premiumes every month from people expecting some financial assistance with medical bills and then reserve the right to deny those very customers what they have paid for when some vital health issue arises. Try to get a doctor to perform any major surgery without insurance and you have a chore on your hands...thats what makes insurance nearly a necessity. Because it is nearly a necessity, it needs to be more affordable and available to all whether employed, unemployed, or underemployed.

I still haven't received a serious answer to why it's the insurance industry's responsibility to make sure we all have healthcare. Why not force the medical industry to give the care for less as opposed to forcing someone else to pay the astronomical prices?

'

Its not their responsibility to make sure we all have healthcare. IN a country with this much wealth though, it is the an embarassment that the health industries dont provide accessible and affordable health care for all. T

he insurance companies will still function as they always have,the public option will be just another CHOICE for those of us who cant afford the traditional private insurance premiums. I dont feel that it is holding the insurance companies responsible for making sure we all have healthcare so much as it is holding them responsible for delivering to their consumers the product they are accepting premiums for each month .

All I know is that Congress should be looking into medical costs instead of trying to compete with insurers.

Something is wrong when you get a hospital bill for a bed pan, a plastic cup, a toothbrush, and a few other toiletries and you get charged 46.97 .

regardless of who's fault it still needs to be regulated because companies are allowed to jack up prices for premiums along with people being over billed for services or ordered to undergo unnecessary procedures

but its many of the insurance regulations that add to the cost. Right now, you cannot buy insurance across state lines - that severely limits competition. Furthermore, that also requires corporate entities in every state for companies like blue cross, further increasing costs and prices for consumers. The over billed part is largely a mistake of communication or largely mistakes by the hospitals and not something that needs to be taken out on the insurance companies. The unnecessary procedures are the same thing - all on the care end, not the insurance. I cannot think of one case where an insurance company would want someone to receive treatment that they do not need where the company will have to pay.

It's all problems in the root of the issue: the medical care system. It has nothing to do with the insurance company other than increasing costs for them and us

@msharmony
i understand the issue of being another option, but all the public "option" is is a price ceiling. granted it can go two ways, but neither have a good outcome:

Situation #1: Public option provides alternative to steep insurance costs from private co.
Assuming there was no limitation on pricing for pre-existing conditions and high-risk patients for private companies (unlikely), this would lead to everyone with a special situation (basically, the unhealthy or high-risk) flocking to the public option. This is bad. All it will do is place an undue load on the system and bankrupt the private option. Sure, the private companies will be happy to rid themselves of their more expensive clients, but the government will be losing money hand over fist and we will have to find a way to pay for it.

Situation #2: public option acts as a price ceiling by undercutting private insurers
Here, you end up with a single-payer system. This is my greater fear and the more likely situation because I really doubt this will be passed without severe price limitations in place. Essentially, the government does not have to make a profit so they can therefore do less fraud monitoring and also, being they have far smaller operations by integrating nationwide, already have cost advantages. This will ultimately price the small insurers out of the market very quickly with the larger ones to follow. as insurers die off, more and more will join the cheaper public plan and ultimately, the big insurers will have no clients.


Either way, this is a means to an end. Everything they are putting in place is going to kill the industry and spike prices. By artificially placing a ceiling and limiting how much private insurers can charge but not limit their payouts, you limit their options to ultimately having to charge everyone in an age group more. Right now, the youth pay for the elderly, but someone 55 in great health will pay less than the 55 year old who had two heart attacks. Since you no longer can split the age, you have to charge the two 55 year olds the same and bump up the charges for the younger one to meet costs.

Where the **** does that make healthcare cheaper in the public sector? It doesn't it kills off the industry little by little until one day, the government is the only one standing; even if they're up to their balls in debt to do it.

but why is it the insurance agency's fault that medical care is so expensive?