To clarify, my position is far from the Republican party line on the issue. I agree with most of the new regulations in the bill that I'm aware of, but I would vastly prefer a bill without a public option.
1) The scenario you described isn't as damaging because it's just a single state. If doctors are underpaid by the dominant insurer in Alabama, they can move elsewhere. Even if they don't, losing money from just Alabama isn't going to set progress that much. Losing money from the whole nation will.
2) They shouldn't, and regulation is necessary to fix that.
3) I don't think insurers and pharmaceutical companies hold back cures for diseases, but they definitely do push forward treatments that will lead to long-term revenue. This is why non-profit research funding is an important part of the system.
You talk about moving between states like it's changing a pair of pants. That's a pretty big deal for most people. A monopoly in an area the size of Alabama is like a monopoly in an area the size of Bosnia.
It's more than just moving. Fewer doctors will choose to practice in the state. I'm not saying that things are fine since they can just move; I'm saying that thing's aren't fine so some of them will move.
I will reply to you and Calamitous both here, since you both had some solid points and follow ups. I should also clarify as well with my 2nd question.
It's not that he's being -forced- to pay for health insuranceh. It's that the insurance provided to him through his work is outrageously expensive for him and his family, even with the company assistance. He's said that going outside of his company and acquiring insurance on his own is even more costly. So I agree with Calamitous on this in that it would be great if individuals and small business received the same tax breaks as large companies do, well that would be a great thing. This, in some form, is in the bill, correct?
As for the first question, I agree that comparing a single state's situation with a single dominant provider is very different from something on a nation wide scale. Although the issue with doctors being underpaid wasn't exactly what I driving at. I was more concerned with the provider charging exorbitant rates and the residents not have much of a choice but to pay them. As Calamitous suggested, allowing insurance companies to compete across states lines seems like a good way to level out the playing field. I'm curious if this, too, is in the bill?
As for the last item, I agree that the thought that any company would actively suppress cures for diseases is hard to imagine. However, I still haven't written the possibility off completely. If you do agree that they at least promote treatments that offer better long term revenue streams over quicker and cheaper methods, then my unfortunate state of pessimism doesn't see the withholding of cures as much more of a step. Your comments about non-profit research do offer a good argument and I would agree with you there as well. I'm curious to know if any of the premiums that will be collected via the public option will go towards these research funds or if all of that will be wrapped up in actually paying for the plan itself.
1) The scenario you described isn't as damaging because it's just a single state. If doctors are underpaid by the dominant insurer in Alabama, they can move elsewhere. Even if they don't, losing money from just Alabama isn't going to set progress that much. Losing money from the whole nation will.
2) They shouldn't, and regulation is necessary to fix that.
3) I don't think insurers and pharmaceutical companies hold back cures for diseases, but they definitely do push forward treatments that will lead to long-term revenue. This is why non-profit research funding is an important part of the system.