4 ms·

Private insurance doesn't have to be bad. Netherland has private insurance, and it works fine. Admittedly we've got probably the most expensive healthcare syste

by mcv 4y ago

Private insurance doesn't have to be bad. Netherland has private insurance, and it works fine. Admittedly we've got probably the most expensive healthcare system in Europe, but it's still about half of what the US pays. But it does need to be tightly regulated, and more importantly, the healthcare system itself needs to be regulated. There needs to be a drive to lower costs while increasing quality. And of course the insurance company needs to take care of the costs. I see far too many stories about people having to fight their own insurance company. The real fundamental problem I think is that the US healthcare system is primarily run for profit, and not for the health of the people. Both by insurance companies (who strongly resist paying), and by hospitals and other healthcare providers (who love to spring unexpected costs on you). That's the primary difference between the US and Dutch systems.

forgetfreeman 4y ago
It may not have to be bad but it is absolutely an unnecessary siphon of funds out of the healthcare system. Simply put every single ass in a seat at an insurance company is $N not being spent on providing actual healthcare.
- jrockway 4y ago
  Some administrators are going to be necessary to run any sort of healthcare system. Just as an example, someone has to prepare and send each doctor a W-2 every year.
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    Ok so are we now pretending hospital administration staff doesn't already exist? Or that the simple majority of employees in Dr's offices aren't there solely to process insurance claims? So again, for the cheap seats, insurance companies: 100% overhead, 0% healthcare provided.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      Good point. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. No insurance adjusters around, nobody needs to issue them paychecks.
yourusername 4y ago
>Netherland has private insurance, and it works fine. Fine-ish. For example some medications are not available because the insurance companies decided they would pay only for the cheapest generics and then only the lowest prices of anyone. For some reason this means that manufacturers decide to only supply to the Netherlands when they have ample supply. Also there are the inefficiencies of the insurance companies who are for profit entities that spend large ammounts of money on their executive teams and ad campaigns to convince people to switch their policy to a difference insurer.
- mcv 4y ago
  That's why I said fine, not great. There's tons of room for improvement, but it's not the disaster that the US health care system is. But obviously any system that involves for-profit companies with executives and shareholders is going to siphon some money out of the system. I don't doubt socialised healthcare systems are fundamentally cheaper, and if done well, at least equal in quality. I'm just saying it's not just the privatised nature that's crippling the US system; it's certainly not helping, but it's aggravated by being a particularly poorly implemented privatised system that's entirely about profit and doesn't really care about the people it's supposed to help. And let's not fool ourselves; there are also wrong ways to do socialised healthcare. I do think socialised is generally better, but you always have to look critically at all the parts of the system.

by mcv 4y ago

forgetfreeman 4y ago

It may not have to be bad but it is absolutely an unnecessary siphon of funds out of the healthcare system. Simply put every single ass in a seat at an insurance company is $N not being spent on providing actual healthcare.

jrockway 4y ago
Some administrators are going to be necessary to run any sort of healthcare system. Just as an example, someone has to prepare and send each doctor a W-2 every year.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Ok so are we now pretending hospital administration staff doesn't already exist? Or that the simple majority of employees in Dr's offices aren't there solely to process insurance claims? So again, for the cheap seats, insurance companies: 100% overhead, 0% healthcare provided.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    Good point. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. No insurance adjusters around, nobody needs to issue them paychecks.

yourusername 4y ago

>Netherland has private insurance, and it works fine. Fine-ish. For example some medications are not available because the insurance companies decided they would pay only for the cheapest generics and then only the lowest prices of anyone. For some reason this means that manufacturers decide to only supply to the Netherlands when they have ample supply. Also there are the inefficiencies of the insurance companies who are for profit entities that spend large ammounts of money on their executive teams and ad campaigns to convince people to switch their policy to a difference insurer.

mcv 4y ago
That's why I said fine, not great. There's tons of room for improvement, but it's not the disaster that the US health care system is. But obviously any system that involves for-profit companies with executives and shareholders is going to siphon some money out of the system. I don't doubt socialised healthcare systems are fundamentally cheaper, and if done well, at least equal in quality. I'm just saying it's not just the privatised nature that's crippling the US system; it's certainly not helping, but it's aggravated by being a particularly poorly implemented privatised system that's entirely about profit and doesn't really care about the people it's supposed to help. And let's not fool ourselves; there are also wrong ways to do socialised healthcare. I do think socialised is generally better, but you always have to look critically at all the parts of the system.