To repeat, the market cannot -- not will not, but cannot -- provide either goods or services on which it can derive no profit. That's fundamental to the nature of a market. Health care must be provided to all Americans. A significant proportion of the care cannot be profitable. Profit cannot be derived from customers who need, for example, $500,000 worth of care but have an annual income of $25,000. It isn't going to happen, no matter what government does or does not do. Health care is not a discretionary purchase. Care must be provided to everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay for it. For-profit corporations cannot do that and survive.
This a common misconception about the insurance market; a surprising portion of the US population and Congress does not understand its basic principles. The private insurance market provides care to individuals in excess of the premiums they have paid, or has been paid on their behalf, every day.
In other words, they do not make a profit on that particular individual, but they still do in the aggregate. The risk of future costs for that individual is spread across all of those in the insured population. This means the company collects premiums for an uncertain future event (needed care) from all people in the population, with the understanding that some would need little care while others will have great needs. So, the people who do have the misfortune to need a lot of care get a great deal, and the company can make a profit and continue to provide their service, while those who needed only basic care may pay premiums that exceed the amount of their bills (for any particular period).
This is obvious to anyone who understands the situation for individuals with pre-exisiting conditions in the individual market vs the large group market. An individual with a pre-existing condition may not be able to get insurance at an affordable rate, or even at all, while the same person as a group member would have no problem and pay no extra ( and would probably never be asked about their health status, beyond their age range).
This is why it is important to have everyone or as many as possible in the system - something the single payer crowd complains about as a give away to the insurance companies. The more people the less stringent the underwriting can be and we can move toward eliminating pre-existing conditions on individuals and reductions in premiums on both individuals and small groups.
But you are right about one thing - private companies cannot, generally, provide their services to large numbers of people for free and remain profitable and in business. But under a government takeover there is also a cost; the money has to come from somewhere, and someone has to pay. That payment can come in the form of taxes, greater debt liabilities, or a devaluation of everyone's purchasing power ( just print more money). So it is a foregone conclusion that to cover everyone, the taxpayer will have to kick in. Doing this under a purely private system will require some taxpayer subsidies for those who cannot pay.
The almost invisible public option in the House bill is next to useless, and the Stupak amendment is a fundamental attack on human rights. The bill's mandates will transfer far too much wealth to the same greedy insurance corporations that are the root of the problem. The bill is a cautious and timid effort in times calling for bold action.
Obviously you have not read the Stupak amendment, you should, it is only a couple of pages. There is no attack on human rights anywhere in it, simply a clear outline for ensuring that taxpayer money does not fund abortions. The complaints about outlawing abortion or preventing insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortion are scaremongering, pure and simple.
Also, I haven't read the whole tome/bill so if you could let me know the sections describing the transfer of wealth to insurance companies, I would appreciate it. If you mean that it will result in them covering more people and collecting more premiums, please see my comments above.
One efficient way to go would have been to simply lower the eligibility age for Medicare by intervals over a multi-decade period. For example, lower it to 50 to start, and then by 5 years at 3-year intervals until everyone is covered.
Health care is a fundamental right and, as such, should be removed from the vagaries of a system based on greed and avarice. Those who disagree are simply placing corporate wealth above the health of their fellow citizens.
Yes, the Weiner argument, it all over cable and the blogs (from a policy maker whose lack of understanding of insurance and the market is amazing.) Unfortunately, the insistence on this ideological stance may derail the whole effort and leave many millions without access to the health care system.
