Let’s flood the lines to Washington and the district offices today while the election results are still fresh.
Forward this information to your family and friends; put it on your Facebook and Twitter. Let’s get as many of our fellow Americans as possible to join us in making these calls at this key moment in the health care battle.
Reid, Pelosi and Obama want us to believe their health care takeover is “inevitable.” You and I know better.
This is just more proof.

I think that the public will wake up to the serious problems with this non-solution before it even goes into effect. I hope so.

I’m probably thinking too radically, but maybe not.

I’ll expand on some of these ideas in future posts. First, the main reason some states have a single company with most of the business is that no other insurance companies are able to profitably compete for that business. This is usually due to the fact that the state has numerous mandates and regulations that make the coverage too expensive. It can also be that a single company is just very competitive. For instance, Alabama citizens can choose plans from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and many others. But BCBS in Alabama has very competitive plans, and works on very thin profit margins (0.6%), and so is able to capture a large share of the market (about 75%, not the 90% Obama reported).

I agree with you that more competition is always better. Obama claims to believe the same thing, yet has not endorsed giving citizens the right to buy coverage across state lines, which would increase competition much more than a government plan (which is likely to ultimately decrease, rather than increase competition).

I also agree with you that tax credits for basic coverage for poorer people should be considered, and that individuals should own their own health insurance, not their employers.

Yes, I’ll talk more about HSAs. Health Savings Accounts are of course not a total solution to the healthcare problems in this country, but they are a great start. The plans are much less expensive than conventional plans, because they have higher deductibles. To offset the deductible, HSA owners are allowed to put aside pre-tax money to pay for future medical expenses. This not only encourages personal responsibility when it comes to paying for medical care, but it also encourages consumer involvement when purchasing medical services. That in turn encourages providers to lower prices, increase convenience, and compete on quality – things that don’t really happen when everything is paid for by a third party.

Unlike the government option, a co-op would operate under the same reserve requirements as insurance companies – meaning they would need to have about a third of its premiums in reserve to pay claims. To be viable, a co-op would need about 500,000 members, and would cost $50 – $100 million to start up.

The question would be who funds the start-up costs, which could reach $2.5 billion nationwide. In most states, there is already a very competitive market among insurance companies, with each working very hard to secure a bigger share of the market. If the co-ops raise their own initial funding, then they would give consumers another option – always a good thing.

But if they are not viable without tax-payer funding, we have to ask ourselves, “what’s the point?”. Should the government fund grocery store co-ops, clothing store co-ops, or electronic store co-ops? Of course not.

There are a few states that have overly burdensome regulations, where there are only a few private insurers willing to enter the marketplace. A co-op could provide consumers with another option, however it is unlikely that the co-op will have any easier time doing business in those states than a private insurance company.

The better option would be to let people purchase health insurance outside of their home states. This would mean an immediate drop in premium for those in many states, particularly Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and other states where community rating and coverage requirements drive rates up.