Re # 1: That only works in there is an “individual mandate” where everyone is forced to get coverage. Even the most aggressive bills out there don’t require that, instead proposing a tax/penalty for failing to insure. As long as participation in the the pool is voluntary, risk is not minimized for the carrier/provider simply by an increased number of participants due to adverse selection. Not saying I support the mandate, just explaining why costs might not go down.

Re # 2: I agree with you and I don’t think it’s a political comment, as I’ve seen “empire building” at all organizations, big and small, private and public, for-profit and not-for-profit.

It will be fascinating to see how this all plays out, no?

1) Why should the rules of health care insurance be any different than the rules for car or home insurance? Wouldn’t insurance prices reduce through competition if employers stop offering health insurance? I work for a Fortune 100 company with 50,000 employees. Wouldn’t the risk pool be larger if the pool is millions of employees instead of 50,000 employees?

2) I don’t want to get too political, but does a government health care option increase the size of an organization with many career employees? I have long contended that any career person wants to see their organization become more dominant over time. Since we have so many politicians with long experience, does it make sense that they would want to consolidate their power like a business would want to do?

Like I said earlier, I know we need health care reform. However, I believe we can do this without the major increases we are painfully experiencing or with additional government intervention.