5 ms·

The essential problem is that the person paying the premium is not the insurance companies "customer". The health insurance company's customer is the sharehold

The essential problem is that the person paying the premium is not the insurance companies "customer". The health insurance company's customer is the shareholder, not the premium payer, that has to end. I have built software for health insurance companies. I can tell you for certain they only look at the details of a policy for rescission purposes for those policies that are costing them far more than the premium has been paying. And if you watch the congress video embedded in the blog post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H9ufue_1uI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftauntermedia%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2F28%2Funconscionable%2Dmath%2F&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H9ufue_1uI&eurl=http%3A%..., it makes perfectly clear that the application part of a policy is very easy to find "flaws" with retroactively if the insurance company choses.

weaksauce 17y ago
That is so true. The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees. The reason that people buy health insurance is for exactly the reason that the insurance companies drop the insured; They cost more money than they spend.
- kgrin 17y ago
  The latter point isn't entirely true - at its core, buying insurance isn't necessarily about using more than you put in over time, but rather mitigating risks (hedging). That's not necessarily how everyone treats the current system, or for that matter how it's set up, but there's certainly a tension between the "insurance" model and the "health savings account" model (and the current system sort of tries to do both). In terms of insurance companies being run as non-profits, let me ask two pointed (and I assure you, not-meant-to-be-trollish) questions: 1) If insurance companies should be non-profits with set salaries and so forth, why not just have the government do it at that point? 2) Two recently prominent examples of non-profits set up to further socially useful goals without actually being government agencies are Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those didn't turn out so hot. How would you set up these non-profits to avoid the same sorts of problems? Actually, I should throw in a third: does anyone know of any examples (successful or not) of a non-profit insurance entity or cooperative?
  - weaksauce 17y ago
    The discourse on this site is great. No need to apologize for questioning anything. Here are my answers to your questions: 1. There is a big difference between government intervention and government run organizations. Government run implies inefficiency and waste. There will always be people that game the system. I am well aware of that, but if all the government did was make it a non profit it would do a lot to mitigate against the mass profitering that is going on right now. 2. Sallie Mae no longer has any ties with the government and Freddie Mac is a government sponsored enterprise. In fact they were both set up as government sponsored enterprises when they first started. Enterprise implies an entity that is in it for the money. As for your third question I do not know of any but it would be enlightening if someone knew of one.
    - jwhitlark 17y ago
      Heh. Anecdote about govt. run organizations: My wife and I, upon being told that the US Post Office only offered a service between 10 and 4, commented that that was rather inconvenient for those of us with a 9 to 5 job. The response? "We're not here for your convenience." Wish I could have gone to someone who was...
    - foldr 17y ago
      Government run implies inefficiency and waste Not always. In fact, existing government-run healthcare systems are much more efficient than the present US system.
      - pjkundert 17y ago
        If by "much more efficient", you mean "lethally long waiting times for treatment, limited choice and no means to estimate competency of treatment providers", then you are correct.
        foldr 17y ago
        No, I mean much cheaper with better objective health outcomes. Or are you seriously suggesting that the current US system works better than (for example) the current UK system?
- anamax 17y ago
  > The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees. IIRC, Kaiser is non-profit. If you think that you can do better, why aren't you doing it? You'll do incredible good for everyone, you'll drive the evil companies out of biz, and I'm sure that we will cut you some slack and let you get rich by whatever standard you deem appropriate.
  - onedognight 17y ago
    "Kaiser Permanente" is technically three separate companies that share (some) infrastructure and (some) employees. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. is non-profit. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is non-profit. Permanente Medical Group (the doctors) is for-profit.

weaksauce 17y ago

That is so true. The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees. The reason that people buy health insurance is for exactly the reason that the insurance companies drop the insured; They cost more money than they spend.

kgrin 17y ago
The latter point isn't entirely true - at its core, buying insurance isn't necessarily about using more than you put in over time, but rather mitigating risks (hedging). That's not necessarily how everyone treats the current system, or for that matter how it's set up, but there's certainly a tension between the "insurance" model and the "health savings account" model (and the current system sort of tries to do both). In terms of insurance companies being run as non-profits, let me ask two pointed (and I assure you, not-meant-to-be-trollish) questions: 1) If insurance companies should be non-profits with set salaries and so forth, why not just have the government do it at that point? 2) Two recently prominent examples of non-profits set up to further socially useful goals without actually being government agencies are Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those didn't turn out so hot. How would you set up these non-profits to avoid the same sorts of problems? Actually, I should throw in a third: does anyone know of any examples (successful or not) of a non-profit insurance entity or cooperative?
- weaksauce 17y ago
  The discourse on this site is great. No need to apologize for questioning anything. Here are my answers to your questions: 1. There is a big difference between government intervention and government run organizations. Government run implies inefficiency and waste. There will always be people that game the system. I am well aware of that, but if all the government did was make it a non profit it would do a lot to mitigate against the mass profitering that is going on right now. 2. Sallie Mae no longer has any ties with the government and Freddie Mac is a government sponsored enterprise. In fact they were both set up as government sponsored enterprises when they first started. Enterprise implies an entity that is in it for the money. As for your third question I do not know of any but it would be enlightening if someone knew of one.
  - jwhitlark 17y ago
    Heh. Anecdote about govt. run organizations: My wife and I, upon being told that the US Post Office only offered a service between 10 and 4, commented that that was rather inconvenient for those of us with a 9 to 5 job. The response? "We're not here for your convenience." Wish I could have gone to someone who was...
  - foldr 17y ago
    Government run implies inefficiency and waste Not always. In fact, existing government-run healthcare systems are much more efficient than the present US system.
    - pjkundert 17y ago
      If by "much more efficient", you mean "lethally long waiting times for treatment, limited choice and no means to estimate competency of treatment providers", then you are correct.
      - foldr 17y ago
        No, I mean much cheaper with better objective health outcomes. Or are you seriously suggesting that the current US system works better than (for example) the current UK system?
anamax 17y ago
> The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees. IIRC, Kaiser is non-profit. If you think that you can do better, why aren't you doing it? You'll do incredible good for everyone, you'll drive the evil companies out of biz, and I'm sure that we will cut you some slack and let you get rich by whatever standard you deem appropriate.
- onedognight 17y ago
  "Kaiser Permanente" is technically three separate companies that share (some) infrastructure and (some) employees. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. is non-profit. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is non-profit. Permanente Medical Group (the doctors) is for-profit.