Honest question. How do we benefit from having a private health insurance system?

[Yavin4]

I understand how the shareholders and CEOs of private health insurance companies benefit, but how do we, as a society, actually benefit? I would like an explanation. Thank you.

[Bonx]

1. It actually pays for everything

[Yavin4]

3. Can't the government do that as well?

And do it without a profit motive.

[Voltaire2]

7. It does. See medicare and medicaid.

Both are stunningly more efficient at performing the transfer function that is the actual 'service' that health insurance performs.

[Voltaire2]

6. was that a joke?

It profits by paying for as little as it can possibly get away with. It is highly profitable.

[Blue Full Moon]

10. It does not

[yardwork]

2. We do not benefit from this system in any way.

[LearnedHand]

4. The ONLY people who benefit from privatized health insurance

Are the SHAREHOLDERS. There are quite a few public good things that should NEVER be privatized, and healthcare funding is one of them. Others are infrastructure, prisons, public transportation, space exploration, and utilities, including broadband connectivity.

[Diamond_Dog]

5. Education, too.

[LearnedHand]

13. Agree!

[mike_c]

8. there is no benefit anywhere close to...

...a public health care system. Private insurers are parasites, nothing more.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. "We" do not. "They" do

They being those with money and ownership. Their bottom line relies on them not paying for healthcare. It's anti-healthcare. They only pay for what they have to pay for and try to get away with paying for less and less.

Single payer is the only way to go. Get our health out of their checkbook.

[ariadne0614]

11. During the ACA debate, they assured us we would maintain control of our own healthcare.

Remember the dire warnings about keeping our own doctors, and god forbid, death panels? That’s how they managed to kill the public option. Oh, and let’s not forget the nonsense that corporations would provide more efficient service, the benefits of which would trickle down on all of us.

[Blue Full Moon]

12. There is a tape of Nixon on HMOs

He said the American people were not that stupid. I guess he was wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I suspect the money in hospitals does enable some innovation

When hospitals can pay extra, and give the best workers the extra time to innovate, so that they can then charge a lot, that can drive new thinking and practice. In state systems, like the British NHS, that depends on big health charities - which can work for the conditions that get a lot of charitable support (eg cancer), but not all do.

On edit: the point is that insurance drives a lot more money into the whole system, because rich people are willing to pay a hell of a lot for their own health, but not for the population as a whole.

[Hotler]

15. It's a racket. How about the Medicare Advantage programs that give you back an

allowance to spend on only stuff they say you can. Like ONLY healthy foods.

[Happy Hoosier]

16. In the abscence of actual universal healthcare, it's a necessary evil...

... but it's parasitic and offers no value proposition.

WE should have Universal healthcare available. End of story.

[Silent Type]

20. That's the fact. It's the best we are going to get until we have an unprecedented change in Congress.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. The people who make the big campaign donations benefit, as do the recipients.

[tenderfoot]

18. Benefits: Board members can pay themselves over 500 times their highest paid employee

eom

[Silent Type]

19. IMO, here's where we are. Since 1990s the only major coverage expansion we've gotten -- ACA, Part D Drug Plans, Part C

Medicare Advantage (* see below), expanded state Medicaid plans, etc. -- have been based upon coverage through private insurance companies.

Similarly, private insurance companies are involved in MediGap policies, and they even administer original Medicare at the local level. If you have an issue with original Medicare, you aren't talking to the government in vast majority of cases, you are talking to a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) that is usually a subsidiary of insurance companies. These MACs credential and monitor providers, audit providers, pay claims of providers, interpret and apply broad and ambiguous Medicare laws and regulations, answers our questions, denies payments that don't meet coverage requirements, etc.

We can face the truth: Nothing major is likely to pass Congress for foreseeable future if private insurers are not involved. Or we can explore universal coverage, recognizing that private insurers will be involved. I know most here, including me find that repulsive. However, sitting here in 20, 30, 40 years from now with nothing of note accomplished for millions of people is even more repulsive.

The ACA -- probably the biggest change -- relies on private insurers with government subsidies for lower income individuals. If we want universal coverage for everyone, essentially Medicare-for-All (MFA), it's only going to happen (1) if private insurers are involved and subsidies are available for lower income groups or (2) we manage to get unprecedented wins in the House, Senate.

Understand, I’m not saying this would be better than a single government payer. I’m saying it has little chance of passing otherwise.



* Medicare Advantage (MA)

I’ve been on original Medicare for 10 years and have a Medigap and drug plan. I think that is superior to MA, but I foresee being forced into MA to get rid of $200 to $400 in monthly premiums for MediGap, Part D. Plus, a lot of people can't afford to forgo $2000 or so in useful benefits like dental.

I do not like MA at all, but it's not going away. I don't care how much we protest, private insurers will be involved, rightly or wrongly. For that reason, I'd support an attempt to peel off a few GOPers and pass universal healthcare that relies on government subsidies, government guidelines and enforcement, etc. I'd also limit it to a few health insurers that agree to abide by rules.

Otherwise, what we have now is the best we are going to get without a unprecedented shift in Congress, while a Democrat is Prez.

[dpibel]

21. Employers benefit, too

When you have a workforce that relies on employment for health insurance, you have a workforce that is much less likely to move to another job.