It's like we live in a town with only one store, let's call it "Lucky's". The store charges exorbitant prices and offers terrible customer service. Obama would like to open up another store in town to provide competition and offer the people a choice. Orrin Hatch suggests just giving money to the people who cannot afford to shop at Lucky's, so that they will then be able to continue shopping at Lucky's. Sounds like a sweet deal for Lucky's, but it does nothing for the middle class who can barely afford to shop there.
Opening another store in town does not force anyone to shop there, but it puts incentive on Lucky's to get their costs under control. And it gives people an option. I want an option and I want some competition. My health insurance company is not doing right by me: raising prices, lowering benefits, denying claims; but their execs are doing great.
There will always be someone between you and your provider. Is it better for that entity to be one who is not allowed to make money off being the middleman, or for it to be someone who's sole interest is making the most money possible out of being that middleman? The way to maximize profits in a health insurance company is to charge as much as you can and provide as little service back. This is a horrible arrangement and should not be allowed.
They claim it is in the names of their shareholders, but none of the major insurance stocks pay dividends. These profits are shared among a very few elite people. It should be illegal for insurance companies and hospitals to be for-profit. It is a conflict of interest.
Oh yeah, the new health care plan should cover acupuncture. And to keep costs down, we need to promote health and prevent disease. The government should launch a PR campaign to encourage people to get healthy. One major component of this simple plan is that the government should buy copies of my book, "The Asian Diet" and give one to every person living in the country, and to our military overseas.