Should the profits of an insurance company define the life and death of human beings?

As much as anything else part of the motivation for the ACA was to say that the profits of an insurance company,  their bottom line,  was not the bottom line.   The death of human beings was not a legitimate tactic in the defense of the profit margin of any company.   Insurance companies had by the nature of the business an accountability past financial profit.  In the last years millions of people who would have unnecessarily suffered a few short years ago didn’t.   And many who might have died lived.

In the news now I read of insurance companies threatening to back out of the insurance exchanges.   I read that at least one company threatened to back out if they were not allowed to merge with another.   When the merger was denied they basically did leave the exchanges from what I  understand.

I am not an expert.   A lot of the technical details of the argument are above what I  understand.   I understand that people were sicker than what the insurance companies anticipated.   I  would assume that if you are going to offer insurance to people who have not had it they would be sicker.   But my point is something totally different than any of that.

We can’t go back to where we were.   We can not tell 20 million people you cost too much and sorry.   That is untenable on every level.   I  am not saying it is there now.   It is not.   But all things are a matter of momentum and we can not let ourselves slide into a position where we have went full circle and once again insurance companies  can decree the life and death of American citizens in defense of their pursuit of a dollar.   I don’t think 20 million people will sit silently.

The discussion about a public option needs to be revisited.   The question needs to be asked if a system in which a main player in that system makes its profit and sustains itself based on how much care it does not provide can ever be a humane system and offer equal protection and service to the poorer and sicker people that depend on it.   A lot of people dismissed the public option as not being a practical option.   I am beginning to wonder if it is the only practical option.

I do think all things are a matter of momentum and perhaps many people,  the Republican party  for sure,  do not want to talk about it but the conversation needs to be broached again.

If all this is real and a real challenge to the ultimate health of the ACA and it comes down to it what conversation would you choose to have with 20 million people :

I am sorry you cost to much and are bad for business


Let’s talk about this public option.

I know which one I would pick.


One thought on “Should the profits of an insurance company define the life and death of human beings?”

  1. Time out- the “Public Option” is not healthcare for all. It is a further attempt to sell insurance to the public. The public option still uses the private insurers and therefore is not the single-payer system that our country needs.
    Improved and Expanded Medicare for All is the true way to cover everyone in the USA, control costs, and improve equitable health care delivery. Let’s keep focused on the right way to do this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s