Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » The Magistrate » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
The Magistrate's Journal
Posted by The Magistrate in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Aug 20th 2009, 01:38 PM
If the public option is 'of a decent quality and more affordable', why should the company not switch to it, and what could be wrong with that? Insurance company opposition to this course is based on their cold knowledge the product they offer is necessarily inferior to a public plan, since their business model requires them to pay out in benefits an ever decreasing portion of the money they take in in premiums. They can only manage this by denying claims, canceling policies when customers actually need them, and raising premiums. Health insurance companies pay out only four fifths of their revenue in benefits. A public plan would pay out all but a trifling percentage of its premium payments in benefits, since it needs neither profit nor the administrative staff required for denying claims and canceling policies. This built in advantage guarantees a public plan will provide better service at lower cost.
Discuss (1 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStar
AlienGirl has passed away
15 recs : By Contrary1
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.