4 ms·

the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks. US federal government is the biggest player in healthcare, by far. 32% of all healthcare

the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks. US federal government is the biggest player in healthcare, by far. 32% of all healthcare spending is Federal government dollars. They have plenty of leverage. Bad if they use it, but they have it. $900+ billion in Medicare yearly $600+ billion in Medicaid yearly

aspenmayer 1y ago
Why would the government taking a stake of the insurance companies be a benefit from the point of view of the federal government or the insurance companies? What would the value add for either party be?
- Hikikomori 1y ago
  Can recoup some of the completely unnecessary money poured into insurance companies that shouldn't exist.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    That money almost seems like ill-gotten gains at this point. To a certain reading, it’s blood money.[0] If the insurance rates are too high, I don’t see how another cook in the kitchen is going to cook the books better, but I’m willing to believe that it could be a shakeup that might work. I just don’t have high hopes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Moralit...
    - Hikikomori 1y ago
      Don't worry, they're now using AI to deny claims.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. I said it would be bad to use the leverage, so I don't think there is a benefit.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. That’s a fair point. I agree that my phrasing glosses over a bit of nuance. The political capital needed to reform the insurance companies would be hard to wrangle for anyone else but Trump, was my point. The government in many states regulates the insurance industry as far as rate increases and so on, so I’m sure they can apply pressure in many ways. I just don’t think that the government would do so, but they could in theory. I’m not sure they would in practice, but you were right to call me out.

aspenmayer 1y ago

Why would the government taking a stake of the insurance companies be a benefit from the point of view of the federal government or the insurance companies? What would the value add for either party be?

Hikikomori 1y ago
Can recoup some of the completely unnecessary money poured into insurance companies that shouldn't exist.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  That money almost seems like ill-gotten gains at this point. To a certain reading, it’s blood money.[0] If the insurance rates are too high, I don’t see how another cook in the kitchen is going to cook the books better, but I’m willing to believe that it could be a shakeup that might work. I just don’t have high hopes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Moralit...
  - Hikikomori 1y ago
    Don't worry, they're now using AI to deny claims.
WillPostForFood 1y ago
You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. I said it would be bad to use the leverage, so I don't think there is a benefit.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. That’s a fair point. I agree that my phrasing glosses over a bit of nuance. The political capital needed to reform the insurance companies would be hard to wrangle for anyone else but Trump, was my point. The government in many states regulates the insurance industry as far as rate increases and so on, so I’m sure they can apply pressure in many ways. I just don’t think that the government would do so, but they could in theory. I’m not sure they would in practice, but you were right to call me out.