Should there be a FOR PROFIT intermediary between patients and doctors?

Question

Why do we need health insurance companies? Isn't it obvious what the problems are when they are required by law to maximize profits for shareholders (like all for profit organizations)? Won't the prices of healthcare fall if no one can sue an insurance company?

Hey Spock? WHEN ( not hypothetical, REAL) my bporther broke his neck and had no insurance, medicaid and medicare covered it. THANK GOD! If he has mediocre insurance, like many do, he would have had to pay 20% of about a million dollars. Next time, try and learn from REALITY, not your made up scenarios that reflect your obvious ignorance.

Answer 1

Some things shouldn't be for profit. services that people's lives depend on are most of these. We wouldn't want a privatized police force, or fire department, so I can't understand why people want privatized medical treatment, making a profit off someone's health is deplorable, if not down right evil. Also capitalism is defeated in this case. Why cure a disease when you can make more money if people have to continue to use you're product to survive. Privatized medical treatment is a horrible idea, that has cost many Americans who couldn't afford the treatment they needed their lives.

Answer 2

my, my -- how loaded can you get with a question??

**
Who carries the risk that needed medical procedures will cost more than your family can afford?


Let's suppose your child is injured falling out of a tree. Nobody is at fault, he just slipped.

Unfortunately, he landed on his head and needs immediate surgery to relieve pressure on the brain [cause -- broken blood vessels inside his skull from the shock] or he'll likely become severely disabled.

The surgeon's and hospital's combined estimate of the likely costs total 350,000 dollars.

You are only in your 20s and have nothing like that kind of resources.


So, who pays? Who carries the risk?
This kind of thing will happen to very, very few families in a year. The present system gives the risk to insurance companies, who spread the cost of your boy's treatment over thousands of families.


I know the liberal answer is 'government' instead of 'insurance company'.

Now suppose we change the scenario just a little -- your boy is injured while riding on a motorcycle behind his father. Neither is wearing a helmet. The father dies. The boy is critically injured -- same $350,000 medical estimate.

Should government pay for this, too? The father KNEW that riding a motorcycle without a helmet was dangerous.

Maybe it is better that an insurance company handle this -- they'll have charged the father significant premiums on his motorcycle insurance because they know that some 35% of motorcycle riders in his state do NOT wear helmets.

Which do you suppose would have more quickly figured out and changed the proper premium for the motorcycle riding father? Government or a for-profit insurance company??

Ah -- insurance company, hands down. You've all seen the speed and efficiency of the government at work in the Post Office -- that is why they've subcontracted their parcel service to FedEx.


Government is the slowest, and poorest managed provider of anything. It always increases costs and ends up reducing services -- Always.

You want the government to run more of your life??


[I'd be roflmao if it wasn't so serious.]

Answer 3

Actually, insurance companies are very specific about what they will and will not cover. In my experience, I have never seen a company promise to pay for a procedure and then change their minds.

If insurance companies are removed, then overly litigious people would sue the doctors directly, which could drive them out of business really quickly. The cost of malpractice insurance is already high; one lawsuit can bankrupt an individual practitioner.

Answer 4

The intermediary in the present system is the for-profit insurance companies.
The only way to control costs is by getting rid of the insurance companies and containing the cost of pharmaceuticals.

Answer 5

Social medicine is a great solution.

People sue insurance companies who are rainmakers, that is to say, they are unethical in business because they promise to pay for medical care, and then do not pay.

If they would do what they promise to do, they would not get sued.