General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUntil we make health insurance non-profit, and eliminate shareholders, it's all talk.
We can talk around and around and around it but the profit must be removed.
While I'm at it,
we can only restore our representative government when we straighten out gerrymandered congressional districts and completely reform elections with time and $$ limits.
Same with guns: Until we get gun control, it's all talk.
Same with immigration: Make a legal path to citizenship and people will choose it.
I'M SO TIRED OF ALL THE USELESS TALK!!!!!!
elfin
(6,262 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)No. Just no. The ACA was a BIG improvement on how things were. I am certain it was meant as a start to single payer. Regardless of the intention behind it tho' have you perhaps missed all the footage of people at town halls and such, talking about how ACA save their life (or a loved one) and how repealing would cause much misery and death? those people who had big improvements in their lives might disagree that the less then perfect ACA was all talk.
Just because something is NOT perfect, or exactly as YOU would like them doesn't negate their actual value.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)induced by the intentional destruction of 18% of our economy any plan to remove the profit motive from health care is also all talk.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)They are nothing but middlemen and do not contribute at all to the health of Americans.
But, there could be a place for health insurers that provide private rooms, etc... you know, for the wealthy.
We need a Medicare-for-All healthcare in America.
hunter
(38,325 posts)Both high administration costs, and pressures to increase their overall revenue streams.
Rotten non-profits with grotesquely overpaid directors and lobbyists, palatial offices, etc., are common.
MichMan
(11,960 posts)Seize their shares, make owning them illegal, or force the corporations to close, thus making the shares worthless?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Even if government wanted to do so, too many ignorant people ain't going to pay the taxes necessary.
We can reduce the impact of profit motives, but even that will take time. I wish that weren't reality and people could work together for society's benefit vs. their own.
MichMan
(11,960 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Doctors would be government employees, equipment would be owned by government -- hence no shareholders. Really, it would be fewer shareholders because is government going to become the equipment/supply manufactures, develop drugs, employee everyone, etc.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)All 'non-profit' means is that there are no shareholders.
A 'non-profit' that didn't make any profit would have no money for expansion, additional endowments, additional scholarships, and would eventually go out of business.
But I get it, you want to control the means of production-- for health care.