Private insurance companies have earned the public’s distrust. They routinely put profitability above their policyholders’ well-being. And a system of private health insurance provision also has higher administrative costs than a single-payer system, in which the government is the sole insurer.

But the avarice and inefficiencies of private insurers are not the sole — or even primary — reasons why vital medical services are often unaffordable and inaccessible in the United States. The bigger issue is that America’s health care providers — hospitals, physicians, and drug companies — charge much higher rates than their peers in other wealthy nations.

  • Roopappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 months ago

    I hate the argument that it’s not the insurance companies fault for high prices. If they are struggling so much, how come they are so fucking profitable.

    Lets fix both, and not complain about the order if we make incremental progress one-at-a-time.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      how come they are so fucking profitable.

      UHC has a profit margin around 6%, whereas Anthem’s is around 3%. Those are not particularly high. For comparison, Toyota (8%) and Home Depot (10%) are both more profitable.

      • Darkaga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s not useful to compare health insurance profit margins to other industries because the Federal Government requires that they spend 80% of all premium revenue on care. This is effectively a cap on profits and also creates an incentive for insurance companies to pay higher costs for care so they can make more profit.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          they spend 80% of all premium revenue on care

          True. Actually, large insurance companies need to spend 85%.

          an incentive for insurance companies to pay higher costs for care so they can make more profit

          That doesn’t make sense. Insurance companies have to pay health care providers for care. The more care costs, the less money is left for insurance companies. In fact, if health care costs are too high then the insurance company can go bankrupt.

          That said, the converse is not true: insurance companies don’t directly profit by cutting health care spending. That’s because they need to use 80% or 85% of their revenue on care. However, cutting health care spending (by delay, denial, etc) allows insurance companies to lower their premiums.

          And since people often want the cheapest possible insurance, lower premiums means more customers, which means more total revenue, which ultimately does mean higher profits.

          Of course, the key assumption here is that customers will accept worse care if it means lower premiums. This is one of the few industries where you literally get what you pay for.