Comments on: PUBLIC OPINION: Smokers, But Not The Sick and Elderly, Should Pay More For Coverage http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/29/public-opinion-smokers-but-not-the-sick-and-elderly-should-pay-more-for-coverage/ The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:23:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Johnathon Ross http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/29/public-opinion-smokers-but-not-the-sick-and-elderly-should-pay-more-for-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Johnathon Ross Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:46:10 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/11/29/public-opinion-smokers-but-not-the-sick-and-elderly-should-pay-more-for-coverage/#comment-226 I am sure Dr. Iglehart is being facetious when he asks what ever happened to community rating. FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE happened to community rating. The main job of the of the for profit health insurance cabal is to avoid the 10 % of people who generate 70% of the health care costs. That is how they make their money (keep our money). The for profit health insurance industry is no longer providing the socially useful function of spreading the risk across the community. Instead they avoid the sick and disabled and keep the savings. They have no interest in cost control since they get to keep a significant percentage of whatever the nation spends on health. Why would they want to reduce the spending if thay get to keep a percentage of whatever we spend? It is time for them to go. We need national health insurance as outlined in HB 676 (Conyers). Johnathon Ross MD MPH Toledo Ohio I am sure Dr. Iglehart is being facetious when he asks what ever happened to community rating. FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE happened to community rating. The main job of the of the for profit health insurance cabal is to avoid the 10 % of people who generate 70% of the health care costs. That is how they make their money (keep our money). The for profit health insurance industry is no longer providing the socially useful function of spreading the risk across the community. Instead they avoid the sick and disabled and keep the savings. They have no interest in cost control since they get to keep a significant percentage of whatever the nation spends on health. Why would they want to reduce the spending if thay get to keep a percentage of whatever we spend? It is time for them to go. We need national health insurance as outlined in HB 676 (Conyers). Johnathon Ross MD MPH Toledo Ohio

]]>