> Any money going into insurance as profit is a loss to the payer - insurance doesn't _provide_ value. If the gov't is the one "doing the insurance" as you say,

> Any money going into insurance as profit is a loss to the payer - insurance doesn't _provide_ value. If the gov't is the one "doing the insurance" as you say, then any profit from that operation will count as a lowered cost of providing medical treatment. The other users have already mentioned that insurance profit margins, on average, are about 5%. But you should also know that a lot of insurance carriers in the US are non-profit — including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente. > The price sensitivity is at the wrong end - it should be at the medical provider end, not at the insurance end. Why do you think the cost for treatment is low when you're covered under medicare (for low income people)? It's because medicare is such a large buyer that hospitals are able to sell their services at that low a price. That's true, in theory, but in practice Medicare fee schedules aren't that much better than private insurers. Additionally, providers themselves are starting to charge out-of-network rates that are LOWER than Medicare fee schedules. For example, Wal-Mart has launched healthcare in Georgia, charging $25 for a cleaning[1], which is significantly lower than the amount for a cleaning (procedure code D1110) set by Medicare/Medicaid. You can look it up yourself by visiting the FAIR Health code lookup tool (https://www.fairhealthconsumer.org/dental/results https://www.fairhealthconsumer.org/dental/results), and setting the ZIP code to that of Carlton, GA (location of the Wal-Mart clinic), 30627. The average allowed amount is $64. Finally, the US government has historically been pretty bad at setting prices, as a monopsony buyer. The US military spends more per capita on the military largely because it pays more per-soldier, per-fighter jet, etc than any other nation on the planet. You would think that, as the sole buyer of US defense sector fighter jets, it could negotiate better rates. The F-35 is expected to cost $1.5 trillion (!!) over its lifetime, and the US enjoys monopoly/legislative powers over that cost. Another example: NASA's planned SLS moon mission is a bit of a disaster — way over budget and way behind schedule. Because the boosters aren't reusable, each launch is expected to cost $1B (with a B) dollars — EACH launch! Meanwhile SpaceX's target cost-per-launch is $50M. So while you're right that, in theory, a monopsony can extract the lowest possible price, there's absolutely no guarantee of this, indeed American empirical evidence has at times proven otherwise. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-25/walmart-takes-on-cvs-amazon-with-low-price-health-care-clinics https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-25/walmart-t...