> Because otherwise, I don't understand why the market can't provide good health insurance in the US? Isn't that a classic insurance problem, take a group of pe

> Because otherwise, I don't understand why the market can't provide good health insurance in the US? Isn't that a classic insurance problem, take a group of people and spread out the risk? No, your mistake is in assuming that insurance companies exist to spread risk and reduce costs. Insurance companies like most publicly traded companies exist to transfer wealth from customers to executives and shareholders. As a result, they will do whatever they legally can to raise revenue (increasing premiums) and reduce costs (deny coverage, push the burden to the consumer). The other aspect is that healthcare in the United States does not lend itself to a free market solution. There's no transparency in prices, so you can't exactly shop around when you need a procedure done. In addition, you also have times when a person needs treatment due to a life-threatening condition. He is not interested in looking at alternatives, he's interested in staying alive, so he's going to take whatever provider is around. Well, if that provider is not "in-network", he's going to get hit with a massive bill. The United States is literally the only developed* nation that has the concept of medical bankruptcy. * The United States is not truly developed. From an economic standpoint, we are, from a social standpoint, we're not.