[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>         Stockholders do not want a competitive   
   >>> market, they want to buy out or strangle the   
   >>> competition. Why do you think every merger/   
   >>> buyout is followed by a rise in share value?   
   >>   
   >> Which is exactly why we have antitrust laws and regulators like the   
   >> DOJ/FTC to block harmful ones.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >       So you admit the "private marketplace"   
   > will devolve into monopoly capitalism without   
   > government regulation.   
   >   
      
   Yes, competitive markets absolutely need strong regulation and antitrust   
   enforcement to prevent monopolies. That's not a flaw; it's a feature of   
   how we make them work in practice. The DOJ, FTC, and states actively   
   block or condition mergers to protect competition, and they've been   
   ramping up scrutiny in healthcare.   
      
   Even with some market concentration today, consumers still have multiple   
   insurers to choose from in most areas, driving innovation and price   
   competition. A single-payer system, by contrast, is a deliberate   
   government monopoly—no competitors allowed, no antitrust oversight   
   needed because choice is eliminated by design.   
      
   Smart regulation keeps private markets competitive and accountable to   
   customers. A monopoly replaces that with accountability only to   
   politicians and bureaucrats. I'd rather fix the guardrails than remove   
   the engine of competition altogether. What specific mergers or practices   
   worry you most?   
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> Stock prices rise on merger announcements mainly because the acquiring   
   >> company typically offers a premium (often 20-50% above market price)   
   >> to the target's shareholders, instantly boosting the target's stock   
   >> value. For the acquirer, short-term dips are common due to integration   
   >> costs or debt, but investors bet on long-term synergies.   
   >>   
   >> In health insurance specifically, many proposed mega-mergers have been   
   >> blocked precisely to preserve competition: e.g., Anthem-Cigna and   
   >> Aetna-Humana in 2017 were stopped by the DOJ over fears of higher   
   >> premiums and reduced choices.   
   >>   
   >> More competition (not less) forces insurers to keep premiums   
   >> reasonable, innovate, and pass efficiencies to customers.   
   >> Consolidation often does the opposite—higher prices with little   
   >> consumer benefit. That's why sustainable profits in a truly   
   >> competitive market come from better value, not strangling rivals.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >       Sick policyholders being denied   
   > treatment don't want "more competition",   
   > they want TREATMENT.   
   >   
   >       The treatment you would deny them.   
      
   No one is denying sick people treatment—private insurance covers   
   billions in claims every year, and the vast majority of necessary   
   treatments are approved. Denials happen (around 15-20% of claims), but   
   most are for non-covered or non-medically necessary items, and 60-80% of   
   denied claims get approved on appeal. The ACA already bans denying   
   coverage for pre-existing conditions and rescissions, so no one loses   
   their policy when they get sick.   
      
   The real drivers of untreated illness or bankruptcy aren't "evil   
   insurers denying care"—they're high deductibles, surprise bills (now   
   largely fixed by the No Surprises Act), and overall cost. Competition   
   helps attack those root causes: it pushes insurers to negotiate harder   
   with hospitals for lower rates, expand networks, offer low-deductible   
   plans, and invest in preventive care so people don't get as sick in the   
   first place.   
      
   A single-payer monopoly doesn't magically guarantee "treatment"   
   either—it just shifts the denial from an insurance reviewer to a   
   government bureaucrat. Instead of a claim denial, you get rationing by   
   wait times (months for MRIs or specialists in Canada/UK) or outright   
   prohibitions on certain drugs/procedures that the government deems too   
   expensive. Patients still go without timely care; the denial just looks   
   different.   
      
   I want sick people to get treatment too—that's why I favor a system   
   where insurers compete to cover more, approve faster, and keep costs   
   down, rather than one where there's no pressure to do any of that. If   
   the current system still falls short on approvals or affordability,   
   let's strengthen appeals, cap out-of-pocket costs further, or increase   
   transparency—not replace competition with a monopoly that has even fewer   
   incentives to say "yes" quickly. What specific denial horror stories are   
   you thinking of, and do you think a government board would approve them   
   faster?   
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> Here's why that drives real personalization and choice - you   
   >>>> literally shop and pick based on your life: On the ACA marketplaces   
   >>>> or through employers, Americans choose from dozens (often hundreds   
   >>>> in larger areas) of plans. High-deductible with HSA if you're   
   >>>> healthy and want lower premiums? Low-deductible comprehensive if you   
   >>>> have kids or ongoing conditions? Narrow network for cheaper rates,   
   >>>> or broad network for more doctors? Plans tailored for maternity,   
   >>>> chronic conditions, wellness perks (gym rebates, telehealth)—all   
   >>>> competing to match different needs. In a single-payer "Medicare for   
   >>>> All," there's one plan: take it or leave it (and private supplements   
   >>>> are often banned). No tailoring.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Profits are thin, and most money goes to care: Health insurers' net   
   >>>> profit margins are consistently low—around 1-3% in recent years   
   >>>> (e.g., 1.3% industry-wide as of late 2025). The ACA mandates they   
   >>>> spend 80-85% of premiums directly on medical care. That modest   
   >>>> profit incentive pushes them to innovate (apps, virtual care,   
   >>>> preventive programs) and negotiate rates to keep premiums   
   >>>> competitive—so they attract you, the customer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If they ignore your needs, you switch: Unlike a government monopoly   
   >>>> where you're stuck, competition means if one insurer's plans suck   
   >>>> for you (too stockholder-focused, bad coverage), millions switch   
   >>>> during open enrollment. That pressure keeps them accountable to   
   >>>> customers first.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> At the end of the day stockholders get returns because insurers have   
   >>>> to earn your business by giving you options that fit your needs. A   
   >>>> single-payer system replaces that with one-size-fits-all   
   >>>> bureaucracy—no choice, no competition to personalize. I'd rather   
   >>>> have plans competing for my needs than politicians deciding one plan   
   >>>> for everyone. What do you think—would you prefer zero options or   
   >>>> dozens tailored to different situations?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> budget, and preferences, with options for add-ons like dental or   
   >>>>> vision.   
   >>>>>> Single-payer is one-size-fits-all, dictated by bureaucrats, often   
   >>>>>> resulting in rationing and long wait times. See Canada's system   
   >>>>>> where median wait times for specialist treatment are over 27 weeks   
   >>>>>> vs. under   
   >>>>> 4   
   >>>>>> weeks in the US for similar care.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Incentives for quality: Profits motivate insurers to approve   
   >>>>>> claims quickly and invest in preventive care to avoid bigger   
   >>>>>> payouts later.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>         You have it backwards. Insurance companies   
   >>>>> don't profit from paying claims, they profit   
   >>>>> from DENYING claims. The knee-jerk rejection of   
   >>>>> claims is so rampant that even Republicans have   
   >>>>> urged government to intervene.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The idea that insurers primarily profit by denying claims isn't   
   >>>> accurate.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>        Of course it is. Why do you think health   
   >>> care recission was so rampant before the ACA   
   >>> outlawed it?   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)