<<How was a plan whose main feature was to force everyone (almost) to buy insurance, going to be bad for insurance companys?>>
For one thing, it was going to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, something they often tried before as a means of weaseling out of their obligations. It posed tremendous risks for them. Secondly, as a compulsory purchase forced upon the population by government, government now had powerful reasons for dictating premium ceilings, which, if it didn't come with the original plan, couldn't be far behind it. Third, as a corollary to forced purchase, the plan would either provide, or would soon be followed by, legislation enabling the government to dictate statutory policy conditions that would be fair to the purchasers of the policies. Fourth, in principle it established a l government role in the health insurance business, which in its initial form, might be weakened and diluted enough so as not to offend the industry, but nevertheless was a "foot in the door," which in its subsequent revisions and amendments could exert ever more power over the industry. The less government regulation, the better from their POV. Much easier for the unregulated to screw the consumer than for the regulated industry subject to government oversight.
<<Or how was it going to be good for those who were forced to buy Insurance that they didn't need or buy insurance at higher expense or lessor coverage than they already had.>>
The issue with the plan isn't whether it's going to be good for this wealthy minority or that wealthy minority, but whether its overall benefits for the greatest number of citizens is going to justify the worsening of the position of a few members of a wealthy elite. Everything's a trade-off, nothing is going to please everyone, and so what if a few are left worse off if the vast majority are better off. Right now the system works fine for the rich. Maybe the rich have to come down one or two rungs of the ladder so that everyone else can move six or seven rungs up on the same ladder.
<<Or was it supposed to be good for the people who were going to be taxed against their health care benefits , if they were pretty good "Cadalac" plans?>>
Like I said before, no plan is best for everyone. If the Cadillac owners have to suffer for the pedestrians, the cyclists and the 12-yr-old Chevy owners, too fucking bad. Cry me a river.
<<Obama was allowing Congress to fill the insurance companys feed bowl at the expense of the common man , and the benifit was a marginal increase in the raw number of persons covered , yet still not everyone.>>
Obama's plan sucked, but only because it wasn't "Canadian" enough.
<<And the whole thing was going to require a giant new tax package as boot.>>
Tax the rich. NBD.
<<So yes , good and light and the common man won when Obama and the corporations lost , which of these memos didn't you get?>>
I didn't get the memo that "the common man" was rich.