« Previous Entry |
Main
| Next Entry »
The Health Care Debate: Eliminate the for-profit middle man and all is solved?
Name:
C. McManus
City & State: Seattle, Wash.
Question/Comment: When the NewsHour does segments on health care, I would love for you or any of the staff to ask the health care administrators, economists and especially the politicians why people support a health care system that requires a middle man (the health insurance industry) to profit on human suffering. This is the premise underlying our system: that the insurance industry needs to profit from the diseases and health tragedies of U.S. citizens. We are the only industrialized country that does this. I would like to see the health care debate include this question. Presently we have a disease-treatment, for-profit system. Keep asking challenging questions!
Paul Solman: The debate over a single-payer system is based on this question, isn't it? But before we vilify the insurance industry, let's face the awful truth: someone's going to have to be the "middle man" between those paying for the system and those who need its benefits. It could be a for-profit firm, a non-profit or even the government. But no one's going to be able to perform the service for free. Even the government has to buy computers, hire claims inspectors, etc., etc., just like private insurance companies. Think Medicare. Indeed, one argument against a single-payer system is that Uncle Sam will do business so inefficiently, it won't save the system a dime.
The argument against the current system, of course, is that it may be far more expensive than need be, because so many insurance companies duplicate services while weighing down health care providers with different rules, procedures and forms. Health care insurance "profits" - the difference between total costs and total expenditures - are something like 5 percent. If you think that's immoral, fine. But in terms of cost to you, me and our fellow Americans, the question is whether ridding the system of the profit-seekers is going to make it more efficient or - God forbid, but not impossible - 5 percent less efficient, in which case paying them their current profit rate is a good idea.
-- Posted July 23, 2008 | Comments (4) | Permalink
Hi Paul. I can't believe no one has commented on this item. Single-payer advocates are asleep at the switch. The argument against the current system (the really important argument) is that it leaves out a growing segment of the population. That should not be an option. Everybody needs healthcare. A rational and humane society would guarantee healthcare to all of its members. Shockingly, the United States does not. The question, then, is how to provide universal healthcare in the most affordable manner. All evidence points to a government-based, not-for-profit system. This could be a national health service like that in the UK or it could be a single-payer plan like that in Canada. While the UK model would offer the greatest savings, the Canadian model seems to be the most politically palatable. It goes without saying that the system would have to be run efficiently. It also goes without saying that it would have to be adequately funded (so we wouldn't have those long waiting lines that everybody attributes to the Canadian plan). The point is that anything less than universal healthcare is unacceptable and that we therefore have to do the best we can (probably by instituting a single-payer plan) to get there. Right now we are indulging our preference for a market-based system at the cost of human lives and human misery and more and more of our citizens are at risk everyday.
I believe that insurance companies aim for a maximum of 60% to be paid in benefits.
Medicare is much more efficient than for-profit insurance. You imply that it is not. Only 3% goes to overhead as opposed to around 30% in insurance industry. The toughest part about having govt. insurance is that people love to take advantage of the government, as if it isn't our own tax dollars being stolen!
Just supplying money for health care (through sliding scale payments with the whole nation in the pool, as in Canada) is not enough. The way the money is spent is a second aspect: Besides aforementioned fraud, exhorbitant medical costs need to be thoroughly addressed. A third part of the package is to crack down on the processed and GM foods and the side-effect chemical drug industries so that good health has a fighting chance. We've forgotten prevention with diet and common sense.
I believe the largest part of the problem really began when insurance companies went from non-profit to for-profit status. Initially, insurance was a communitarian concept based on the idea that "we are all in this together." The insurance company became the steward for the greater pool of individuals who shared a common interest in maintaining the health of their community or group.
When insurance companies function in a for-profit capacity, they are responsible first to their shareholders... not the insureds. It is an over-simplification, but I believe that the way insurance companies make money is to deny care.
It is indefensible for the U.S. to be the wealthiest country in the history of the planet, and for it to not commit to the health of its people. The first step is to achieve consensus (or for the President to declare)that health care is a basic human right. Once it is established that we are seeking guaranteed, high-quality, affordable health care for all, we can start talking strategy.
Until our elected officials have the spine to stand up for the common good, rather than specific interests and individuals, we're stuck in an "every man for himself" society...the shadow side of the vaunted "marketplace."