It may sound extreme, buy I'm of the mindset that if this reform alters the bottom line of some insurance companies in such a way that they lose it all, I say so be it. I'd rather a few monster businesses serve as casualties at this point considering the massive loss of life (and livelihood for that matter) that their practices have long caused directly and indirectly for decades.
First, I think we have to answer the question of "who is going to provide said services if these companies go under"? The answer to that usually solves the misunderstandings in these debates. Sure you say the whole insurance market wont tank, but look at the amount of people inured by these "monster businesses". ( I always find it odd that we use descriptive terms like "monster" for big companies like this) Thats a huge issue if they suddenly are uninsured. Of course I think that is part of the point for those wanting single payer in this country but thats a different discussion.
Let me get personal for a minute to explain my position. Right at a year ago I lost my cousin to cancer. He was very poor and had basically no insurance coverage most of his life. I absolutely believe (as do many of his recent physicians) that he would be alive today if he had true access to healthcare earlier on. He was looked over, ignored, nearly turned away, and even treated as a drug seeker for years. He is now gone and his wife (who is unable to work due to physical conditions) and 2 year old son are left to fend for themselves. I dont however, hold insurance companies solely to blame and even if I did, dont think demonizing and causing them problems is going to really solve the kinds of issues that took my cousins life. There are ways to address chronic illness and insurance without a "one size fits all" federal law simply forcing things into effect without concern for "how" and its consequences. I dont want this situation for anyone, my worst enemy, but I dont think what we are discussing is really solving anything at all. Forcing out of business the major medical insurers is only going to magnify these kinds of issues, not solve them. Unless of course we are wanting to take up government run which I suspect is the core to these types of discussions.
Bottom line: if the current companies do end up faltering because of these changes (which I'm not convinced of) yes they may take a hit, but in terms of the whole industry collapsing like some fear-mongerers will try to get you to believe, I'm more convinced that they will innovate as necessary and IN TIME find new balance.
First, I think its disingenuous to label opposing viewpoints as "fear-mongering" and then say you would love to hear from others especially the opposing view points. Just saying.
Second, "IN TIME" is a serious issue in this discussion. The whole point of ramming this bill through was because we didn't have time. Because this is people's lives we are talking about and lives are ending all the time. So to say, it will work out "in time" is counterintuitive to the whole point of the quick action on the bill. Unless of course the action was more about political gain than helping people, which is what I believe to this day.
The status quo of their mode of operations needs to change, and nothing but something big to shake up that status quo could do it. Is the reform perfect? Not even close; that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that insurance companies HAVE to change their game and I'm glad that there is now a force to potentially bring that about.
I reject the premise to this altogether. Nothing but this bill could change the "status quo" (to use the new Obama registered trademark phrase)? Seriously? I think its a false premise to say this is the only thing that could have "forced" changes in the "mode of operations" in the insurance market. There are a myriad of other ways to affect said mode of operations, not just this bill.
Also, strong arm forcing of change is never as complete, or sustainable as compelling change.
That's my thoughts. I also recognize that I am pretty biased having grown up in a low-income neighborhood--so keep in mind that this is a big thing coloring my thoughts.
I grew up in a very low income area, in fact I spent many of my formative years in a Ukrainian ghetto. Not many places in the US that can compare to that place, let me tell you. I disagree though that these kinds of experiences are what shape our beliefs or "bias" as some might say in these kinds of issues. Obviously we came to very different conclusions about it.
I'd love to hear from others, especially from the opposing viewpoint who can help me see more clearly where the defenders of these companies are coming from. I'm always open.
I hope you are truly open, as you just heard from one opposing view. I also think using words like "defenders of these companies" is a little loaded. I dont think anyone is "defending" per se the insurance companies specifically, but opposing the way this bill has effected them.
