tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post2457100146953986193..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: No Insurance Club Vs. President Obamamike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-70158162677856600962009-08-27T19:59:22.213-07:002009-08-27T19:59:22.213-07:00That's a great article. Very even handed. Tim&...That's a great article. Very even handed. Tim's comments are typical because the concept of procedure costs and insurance costs being separate is a new way of looking at the old problem. <br /><br />Price competition has never existed on procedures, only on premiums and deductibles and those are two completely different animals. <br /><br />The "Free market" has never been free in healthcare. Regional insurance monopolies controlled the patients to the providers. Having a fully mandated option would just replace regional monopolies with a national one.<br /><br />Any group that promotes a true market based solution, based on total price competition will see that Lasik went from $3,000 to $500 and improved every year because of the price competition. You never see insurance companies advertising "$50 mammograms with no co-pays this weekend" I am assuming you would not have that luxury if we had a government option either. Thanks guys, ChadChad Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13746094521505745793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-68683960702787173602009-08-27T17:04:33.513-07:002009-08-27T17:04:33.513-07:00It's a decent enough idea. I'm a progressi...It's a decent enough idea. I'm a progressive for the most part, but I also disagree with idea that the solution to this problem is to have the government mandate what private actors -- individuals, businesses, and insurance companies -- have to do vis-a-vis health insurance. But I do agree that the government should provide its own alternative for those who want/need it, but then leave the private market to its own devices for those who would prefer that. This would still leave open the possibility of something like No Insurance, but at least there would also be a basic level government program for anyone who wants it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-74143674170908552272009-08-27T15:19:08.106-07:002009-08-27T15:19:08.106-07:00Interestingly enough, there is a contradiction in ...Interestingly enough, there is a contradiction in your own words. The free market created No Insurance Club. You like that but the free market didn't create reform. <br /><br />In fact, it was the lack of a free market that created higher premiums. There are regional monopolies all over health insurance. That's no free market, but a monopoly. <br /><br />Furthermore, with Obama's plan, there is no No Insurance Club because it becomes obselete.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-50524536098871068482009-08-27T15:10:39.186-07:002009-08-27T15:10:39.186-07:00"I think there's a certain irony here. Pr..."I think there's a certain irony here. President Obama wants the government to regulate and control because he thinks that leaving the free market to its own devices wouldn't produce the necessary reforms to bring down costs."<br /><br />Actually the market has proven to not be able to produce reform, only higher premiums. I like the no-insurance idea, and it would be cool to see it as one in a palette of options available.<br /><br />TimAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15450184256341244067noreply@blogger.com