Why do some opponents of health care reform trust insurance companies more than the government?

Because they are unaware that death panels are already in existence and run by insurance company executives. If more people were aware of that, maybe the USA would have a healthcare system that the worlds most powerful nation deserves.

I am always amazed how many Americans seem not to be aware about the issues with healthcare relying on FOX and other sources to spread misinformation about the healthcare system of the USA and those abroad.

First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper [1]. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance [2].

Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.

Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this [3].

FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [4,5].

FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover [6].

FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [7].

That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.

The reason our healthcare in America is so expensive is that the buyers are so far separated from the sellers.

The people paying for the goods and services are not doing so with their own money.

When there is a seemingly endless supply of money to pay for proceedures, the number of proceedures needed will be endless.

When someone else pays, we take whatever we can get, and as much as we want; when we must pay we save for what we need and only take what is necessary.

When I hear people complaining of greed, I wonder if these same people only take as much as they need when someone else is freely giving or if they take as much as they can. I suspect the latter.

Asking government to pick up more of our costs will only raise our costs because it will at first appear as if we're getting something for nothing. The reality is, government will tax us all, skim off the lion's share of the loot, and ration by necessity the goodies they dole out to us.

The only way to correct the errors of the past in regards to healthcare is to gradually remove Daddy Warbucks and his deep pockets from the picture. More government isn't the solution, less government involvement in private decisions like who will pay for our health care is the only viable solution.

---

The problem with healthcare in America is that the customer, that is, the entity paying the bills is no longer the patient, but is instead a faceless bureaucracy be they government or private health insurance entities.

More bureaucracy and more government cannot fix this problem.

From the site, "Under health insurance reform, insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing coverage because of someone’s medical history or health risk."... "And insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who are or become ill."

So when the insurance companies lose everything because of the requirement to assume bad investments, who do you think will prop them up financially?

The government can’t seem to run anything efficiently, so I would prefer to see public cooperatives rather than a government-run healthcare option.

The primary problem you cite can be rectified through legislation rather than creating a government-run program:

Prohibit insurers from cancelling policies other than for failure to pay premiums or fraudulent misrepresentation in the application (insurance fraud is a felony).

We are talking about insurance that will cover previously existing conditions. That’s what insurers are most worried about. But how does that hurt them? They can adjust (as in “raise”) their rates by class on an annual basis based on their claims history. If they’re getting hammered by claims from their policyholders who are 55 to 65 year old, the companies can raise premiums for that group.

I have a friend who worked for a large insurance company. He said the companies “love” cancer because it kills quickly. What they don’t like is people with Parkinson’s, strokes and heart disease who may linger for years.

Insurance companies are regulated by government at the state level, but apparently that regulation is not effective in preventing the problems you point out.

Because of personal experiences and experiences of family and friends, people have plenty of reasons to distrust both insurance companies and government.

Insurance companies don't like to take on catastrophic risks, and the coverage of catastrophic risks is what people really need from health insurance. So, that leaves a big role for government.

Even if government is a lot less than perfect, we have to work with them.

Name a single thing the federal government has ever taken over from the states or private industry that was run nearly as efficiently, nearly as effectively, or nearly as successfully. YOU CAN'T! Tell me why I should pay for health care for fat people, drunks, smokers, junkies, tramps and baby factories. Tell me what I get for MY money. No "right" exercised by one person, can obligate anyone else to do anything. If health care is your "right", you pay for it.

The proposed plot is unconstitutional. I dare you to try to prove me wrong. YOU CAN'T!

According to the proposed plot, if my private insurance changes any of its provisions, including rates, after the socialist bill is enacted, I am required to join the government debacle.

If I am required to pay for the "public option", even if I have my own insurance, where is the "option" part?

If I choose to change private insurance companies, how does that affect you? It doesn't! How can I choose to NOT participate in the government's debacle?

If the proposed debacle is good enough for the proletariat, why are labor unions and the bourgeois exempted? Will Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd go to DC Public Hospital Number 7 for their treatments after the bill is passed or are they too good to stand in line with the low life proletariat?

Les S, "How can a conservative be pro life, defend the sanctity of life, and then so passionately defend a system that kills thousands of innocent people who have paid into a system their whole life? It is part of conservative logic I will never understand." Do yoou pay into Socialist Insecurity? How mush of what you paid in do you think you'll ever see again? Socialist Insecurity is already bankrupt!!

ADDED: Article 1, Section 8, in part, states as a power of Congress "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy".

How much would that same hypothetical operation cost if the federal government was not imposing regulations on the hospitals? It is NOT a company's duty to look out for its employees retirement. private companies are setup to make a profit and some do, despite the great efforts of the federal government.

"Nor does it say anywhere in the constitution "the federal government can't do anything except what is written in this document". Look up the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Now tell me what part, if any, of your life do you NOT want the federal government to interfere in? Maybe you want the federal government to tell you what kind and color underwear to wear? The powers of the federal government are supposed to be LIMITED by the Constitution of the United States.

Contrary to your ignorant rant, I consider Amercians to be the most resourceful people around when the federal government gets out of the way and lets us do what we know to be right. I don't need some governemnt program to tell me when someone needs help. Government coercion is a LONG way from charity.

IF i get some rare form of cancer (chances are how remote? 1,000,000:1?), under ObamaCare, I would need to meet some arbitrary government test to see if I will live long enough after treatment to benefit the GOVERNMENT! I don't have an expiration date stamped on jmy backside. How will Big Brother predict when I will die?

Why are members of labor unions and the government exempt from this debacle if it's supposedly so great, grand, glorious and wonderful?

Further EDIT: Name a single thing the federal government has ever taken over from the private sector that was ever run nearly as efficiently or successfully. YOU CAN'T! Nor can you point to the part of the Constitution of the United States that allows the federal government top interfere in MY health care or force me to pay for anyone else's. Besides, if I don't like my insurance company, I can find another easily. Overthrowing the federal government is a bit more difficult and expensive.

And you don't think the Gov't will end up rationing care, procedures, or medicines. I do not want the Federal Gov't having mandated access to my personal bank accounts, OR to my retirement account. I do not want the Federal Gov't telling me (since I have a preexisting condition), that the meds I now take are not allowed. I do not want the Federal Gov't running my everyday health OR life.

There IS going to be rationing. There IS a beaucratic "panel" consisting of 20 some individuals and only 1 doctor to yea or nay procedures etc.

You CAN google the House Version at H.R.3200. You can also google the changes the Senate wants. I consider you best begin reading.

As to keeping one's insurance??? You are naive. You change one (1) think in your insurance, your company changes one (1) thing in their group insurance...................you are then mandated to sign up for the Gov't plan. THAT IS WHERE THESE POLITICIANS are very dishonest. THAT is exactly how the private insurance industry will be destroyed anywhere's from 5 to 10 years.

Enjoy talking to people who choose to be deaf here.

Private insurance does NOT meet the needs of many Americans, and NOBODY who'se been refused coverage by a private insurance company (as I and my wife were in the US) deserves to have NO options for coverage, which is all Obama's Bill is providing despite all the hysterical lies being screamed.

The private companies don't WANT to have competititon - and want to keep their monolopy in place - that's the problem.

(At the cost of the lives of tax paying, hard working Americans who die on the street under the present system.)

I am glad that other people are talking about rescission. I have been talking about this from the beginning of this health care debate.

The ruthless and unethical manner that insurance companies are condemning people to die is absolutely appalling. The simple practice of rescission in itself is enough of an argument to abolish private health care, but many conservatives, who claim to be pro-life, simply do not care that the insurance companies are literally killing thousands of people in the name of profits.

How can a conservative be pro life, defend the sanctity of life, and then so passionately defend a system that kills thousands of innocent people who have paid into a system their whole life? It is part of conservative logic I will never understand.

What is worse, in a congressional hearing committee with those three health insurance companies, they admitted to rescission practices and they actually had the gall, on camera, in front of the congress, to say that they will not stop using rescission to stop paying for people with expensive health complications.

Edit: Faithlost

Since when has choice been a factor in the debate about life? You condemn a woman's right to choose because it is against the sanctity of life, but you applaud a corporations right to kill because you have a choice between who is doing the killing?

Furthermore, you are only assuming that a govt. run health care plan will not give you a choice. That is totally false. The government run plan only gives you the same choices you have now, but it will be funded with tax dollars instead of private health insurance money. Simple facts.

Because my insurance company leaves decisions on my care between my doctor and myself. Some may not have insurance companies that are this good, but they can always change insurance.

Now, why do people support a government run health care system when the government has not shown it can run any program with quality and efficiency?

I trust neither. The difference is that I may switch insurance governments tomorrow. At best, I can switch governments every four years, and even then, it takes years to remove their legislation.