If one has to take all regardless of conditions, and the other rejects who it wants, how can the first continue to operate in open competition.

I don’t see how that is possible.

In the case of auto insurance, there is the assigned-risk system, e.g.: http://www.aipso.com/ca/

The CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE ASSIGNED RISK PLAN (CAARP) was created in 1947 by the state legislature with the essential purpose to provide automobile liability insurance to those who “in good faith” are entitled to but are unable to procure such insurance through ordinary methods. The statute indicates a legislative intent to encourage drivers to seek insurance in the voluntary market using the assigned risk plan only as a last resort.

What is the Assigned Risk Plan? It is a processing center by which people who have trouble buying automobile insurance are put in touch with an insurance company which will insure them. From then on, the person and the certified producer communicate with the insurance company as if they had chosen the company. As part of the initial processing, the Plan makes financial responsibility filings with the Department of Motor Vehicles if requested on the application. If the insured or producer is having difficulty in getting the attention of the insurance company, we attempt to assist. When appropriate we will also assist insurance companies in communicating with insured and certified producers.

The assigned risk plan is not an insurance company. Its rates are recommended by CAARP’s Advisory Committee and approved by the Department of Insurance. It is the Advisory Committee’s obligation to propose rates and run the Plan on a self-sustaining basis. The financial backing necessary to assume the risk comes from companies who are required by law to participate in the plan.

Applicants to the plan are divided among these insurance companies in proportion to the amount of automobile insurance business each company writes in the state. For example, a company which insures 10 percent of the cars in California’s regular market insures 10 percent of the applicants to the assigned risk plan.

[…]

If one has to take all regardless of conditions, and the other rejects who it wants, how can the first continue to operate in open competition.

I don’t see how that is possible.

So Health care bill…dems no better than the criminal Bush administration because they are not going to make them negotiate for drugs….WTF. Are you kidding me. We cannot afford this. Period.

I thought from the beginning that the place to start this debate was single payer. If we started there we may have gotten the public option. Since the flacid Dems started the negotiation with a public option we are going to get robbed. No one is going to get the cost savings we need. No one is going to get access for people with pre-existing conditions.

Seriously, why bother at this point. At least keeping the status quo means we may get another crack at this. A bad bill means we will be paying to bankrupt oursleves as a nation and also not get the healthcare we so desparately need.

Hats off to Jane for seeing where this was going from the very beginning and whipping the public option.

I left a message for my Senator I asked him to explain to me if we need cost control and we are so enamorned with the “market” how are we going to get competition needed to reign in costs when NYT is reporting that 65% of insurance markets are dominated by one or two companies. Newsflash this is an oligopoly, one step down from a monopoly one or two players. So few players means they can easily collude and charge whatever they want. How are we going to foster competition without a public option? Tell me that. While we are at it which fiscally responsible reps are going to vote against a giant give-away to the PHARMA industry? Hmmmm????? Hypocrites every single one of them. Disgusting corrupt hypocrites.

The oligarchy lets us vote. That’s all.