3 ms·

Those graphs don't really refute the point. Look at the buckets: Things like Dental Services, Home Health Care, Nursing Care Facilities... This tells you about

Those graphs don't really refute the point. Look at the buckets: Things like Dental Services, Home Health Care, Nursing Care Facilities... This tells you about healthcare spending at the macro level, but doesn't explain why a particular doctor visit cost so much (I don't use any "nursing care facilities" or "dental services" when I visit the doctor for a sprained ankle, for example). When you go to the doctor for a sprained ankle, where does that money go? By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). Where does the other 85% go? Certainly some it is the cost of running a clinic (staff, rent, equipment, etc), but what about the rest? Then look at doctor's income. Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Where do you think that money comes from?

ceejayoz 1y ago
> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). That's quite a bit to a middleman. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ "According to Reinhardt, “doctors’ net take-home pay (that is income minus expenses) amounts to only about 10% of overall health care spending." It's also a big incentive for the insurer to increase prices. If they want more revenues, and more profits, they have to get overall spending to go up. > Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Good. They should.
yepitwas 1y ago
> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). I'm aware of two huge exceptions that are large enough to make this basically not-true. 1) This doesn't apply when they're administering a self-funded plan, like most plans provided by large companies. This represents a giant chunk of US health insurance. 2) This doesn't apply to new plans (I believe in the first two years of operation). I admit I've not looked into it, but I'd be shocked if this isn't being gamed such that a fairly high proportion of plans that aren't excluded by #1, are always "new" and so not subject to those limits.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). That's quite a bit to a middleman. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6179628/ "According to Reinhardt, “doctors’ net take-home pay (that is income minus expenses) amounts to only about 10% of overall health care spending." It's also a big incentive for the insurer to increase prices. If they want more revenues, and more profits, they have to get overall spending to go up. > Your basic family care provider living in Podunkville earns as much as a mid-career SWE in the Bay Area, and specialists earn way, way more. Good. They should.

yepitwas 1y ago

> By law, no more than 15% is going to the insurance company (which isn't just profit, that covers all the administrative costs of running the plan). I'm aware of two huge exceptions that are large enough to make this basically not-true. 1) This doesn't apply when they're administering a self-funded plan, like most plans provided by large companies. This represents a giant chunk of US health insurance. 2) This doesn't apply to new plans (I believe in the first two years of operation). I admit I've not looked into it, but I'd be shocked if this isn't being gamed such that a fairly high proportion of plans that aren't excluded by #1, are always "new" and so not subject to those limits.