3 ms·

According to this article, if you look at the prices insurance companies are actually paying (after negotiations), they're still way higher than in other countr

According to this article, if you look at the prices insurance companies are actually paying (after negotiations), they're still way higher than in other countries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21... This suggests that the providers of medical care are actually the biggest culprits for our out of control healthcare spending and lack of access to affordable care, not the insurance companies, yet your post only passingly blames the former.

ddingus 11y ago
It's both. Private insurers need to make a profit for distributing risk, and due to there being a lot of them, those risk distributions are much smaller than they could be. Adding a public, non profit "cost + x percent" type plan, say Medicare part E for everyone, would very significantly improve this, particularly if it were allowed to bargain for bulk pricing. (that we don't allow Medicare to do this is just nuts!) Private entities also need to make a profit, and there is no meaningful check on this at present. A similar, public non-profit type delivery entity would reduce prices on most common treatments and maintenance activities. Those wanting to profit on primary care could add value, such as home service, etc... and do it that way, rather than mark up common, mass delivered treatments. Secondly, niche specialization could remain high profit, high value add and more people would be able to afford those services. Doing something like this would carve a big hole into much of the profit inherent in the US system, which would bring our national costs closer to those found in the rest of the world, while leaving high profit, high value on the table. Some of us would not be able to afford those high value offerings, but would definitely benefit from much improved access to preventative and or more common, well proven health care. This is all a compromise. The US could make much better choices and improve both access and outcomes.

ddingus 11y ago

It's both. Private insurers need to make a profit for distributing risk, and due to there being a lot of them, those risk distributions are much smaller than they could be. Adding a public, non profit "cost + x percent" type plan, say Medicare part E for everyone, would very significantly improve this, particularly if it were allowed to bargain for bulk pricing. (that we don't allow Medicare to do this is just nuts!) Private entities also need to make a profit, and there is no meaningful check on this at present. A similar, public non-profit type delivery entity would reduce prices on most common treatments and maintenance activities. Those wanting to profit on primary care could add value, such as home service, etc... and do it that way, rather than mark up common, mass delivered treatments. Secondly, niche specialization could remain high profit, high value add and more people would be able to afford those services. Doing something like this would carve a big hole into much of the profit inherent in the US system, which would bring our national costs closer to those found in the rest of the world, while leaving high profit, high value on the table. Some of us would not be able to afford those high value offerings, but would definitely benefit from much improved access to preventative and or more common, well proven health care. This is all a compromise. The US could make much better choices and improve both access and outcomes.