in the last year. It's getting worse and worse.

and concerns that such a plan would seriously harm private insurers

Why should I care if it harms private insurers? What I want is affordable health care, I don't care where it comes from. I've had my currentl health insurance for just over a year, I've made no claims against it. My premiums went up 15% anyway.

Recently it has been revealed that private insurers are cancelling policies retroactively when a person needs to make a major claim. This should be illegal. With single payer, national healthcare, this would not happen. Why should companies like this stay in business? Why should I care if they're harmed?

Questioned about an earlier promise that no one who was happy with their current insurance provided by their employer and wanted to keep it would be forced to switch, Obama had to concede that wasn't really true. As Obama admitted, if the public option is cheaper for employers, some will switch, and not allow their workers to keep their current plan. "What I'm saying," Obama told the gathered reporters, "is the government is not going to make you change plans."

No, Obama did not "concede that wasn't really true." He responded to the question's false premise by explaining, yet again, that offering people a choice is not government coercion.

I am continually amazed at the president's ability to remain calm in the face of deliberate misrepresentation by the press. Somebody needs to send Major Garrett, Chuck Todd and the rest of them back to the swamp of mouth-breathers from which they came.

They're why we're in this mess to begin with. It's all about fear (WHAT will happen to YOU should you get sick?!) and greed - raising premiums constantly, canceling coverage, finding excuses not to cover things they promised they would when you bought your insurance, the list goes on and on.

Stick it to 'em, I say.

Greetings

Wait until private insurers realize they can dump their high cost and pre-existing conditions on the GOV plan, they'll be all for it

OTOH, if the new system forces insurers to take applicants with pre-existing conditions, that will be bigger deal breaker than provate plan

Make no mistake, provate plan profits are driven by having healthy rate payers who don't make claims, rejecting pre-existing conditions i one big way that plans do that

No so incidently feeding that huge pool of uninsured in the process adn thus pushing the cost of care to our premiums

The questioner seemed to be implying that the government should force businesses to retain their existing health plans, if any of their employees wanted them to do so.

Wouldn't that be just the sort of oppressive government micromanaging of private business decisions that Republicans are famously afraid of?

It seems to me that Obama's answer was consistent, accurate, and reasonable... a clear contrast to the rather muddled logic of the questioner.

Few health care consumers have any choice at all. The employers have the choice. To me health insurance is more like monopoly public utilities than a true free market. Consumers rarely get to choose the provider, and their own health care decisions are not made on the basis of price, usually, but instead are based on a relationship with a practice and on their doctor's referrals. Few people are going to cut corners on a doctor if they are seriously ill.

The argument that should be even more easily shot down is that there will be a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. How is that any different from the insurance employee who is already standing there? And these same jackasses spouting this particular talking point are all the Congressmen and women covered by their government plan.

While I'm sure everyone can cheer that the Federal government yesterday took the first steps toward prohibition of tobacco just make sure that government supplied healthcare doesn't become the arbiter of what your health can be.

Make sure that if the government is supervising health care that there are some limits. What's to stop them from declaring that (because it's too expensive and politically attractive) that anyone who's ever smoked, or is obese or drinks, or won't exercise.....etc etc. isn't suddenly INELIGIBLE for health care. Just make sure that in order to 'give' universal access that magically, millions of people are excluded because they have government defined pre existing conditions, that they're just not 'good enough, moral enough' citizens to qualify.

I know fish is healthy but you ate sushi in direct violation of the Federal Health Code, so that infection isn't covered. Sorry, try to be smarter next time.

Alex - how did you fall for the "walk back" spin on Obama's response.

Anyone who has employer-sponsored coverage KNOWS that the Employer chooses the insurance company, and chooses what the policy will/will not cover, and what it costs for both the employer and the employee. The employee chooses nothing except whether to accept or reject the benefit. People also know the employer can change this arrangement at-will (unless they are Union employees).

That's why so many insured Americans favor the public plan. Americans know they are insured at the whim of their employers and with health premiums rising - that they are at risk of their employers trying to save money on their backs.

The question, as posed, was a "gotcha." Everyone in the room knew that. Alex - you do too. That Obama answered so clearly and cooly is a testament to him. I would not have been so kind.

...and private plans still can drop anyone they see fit, private plans will still be able to compete on that ground alone. Private insurers can pick the people least likely to need health care, charge them marginally less than the public option, and make a killing.

The Netherlands' health care system includes private insurers, but forces them to offer a basic plan to anyone who asks for it for a standard price, with a subsidy provided by the government for high-risk individuals. Dropping people because of high-risk conditions, or jacking up their rates, is not allowed.

Once the "saving money by dropping everyone but the lowest risk customers" option is off the table, the economic incentives of insurance companies and public health incentives are suddenly aligned. If you can't lower risk by dropping people, or increase top-line revenue by hiking up premiums, the only way to increase your bottom-line is by reducing the cost of care by improving supply of services and/or making people healthier.

With that in place, the free market can have at it. The government involvement is just enough to make sure that insurance company actions which improve public health lead to profit, and actions which don't aren't profitable at all.