Putting the 'Insurance' Back in Health Insurance

Health insurance companies have many employees, large expensive buildings, office equipment, advertising budgets, donations to politicians, lobbyists, and expensive top executives with perks. They also make a profit.

But they don't treat any patients. They produce no products that help in healing. They provide no treatment. They do nothing to directly assist any patients to get well. Yet we spend many billions of dollars each year to support the parasitic "businesses" which keep more money by refusing to pay for health care and which refuse to insure those who most need medical treatment. Is our health care system crazy or what?

It's crazy Larry. When an American health insurer tried that rubbish here, we forced them to abandon selling those types of cover here and they simply closed down and left.

Here's what we did to the HMO plans: We simply went to our personal health providers, paid and claimed back from them. The government agency with oversight forced them to pay.

They had another rubbish cover that did not pay for the first visit to the doctor. We each simply asked our doctors to say that the visit was as a result of a referral from another doctor.

They leave when they cannot squeeze much out of the public.

So it appears :-D

It's a money machine that appears impossible to stop or change, as there are so many now invested in keeping it going.

In the U.S. yes. In Jamaica, no. We are much too stubborn to accept what the American Companies called "health insurance" cover and the Jamaican government was on our side. Workers' unions founded our political parties.

Are we civilized or not, it isn't just the insurers, I have heard ordinary citizens saying let them die if they have no coverage. WTF is wrong with people, I think we have all been desensitized.

I agree Rita.

One of the wonderful things about Obamacare is the stipulation that the health insurance industry must spend 85% of the money it takes in on actual health care for their insured. One of my local newspapers just reported the names of the particular companies which will be rebating millions to their insured customers.

Even so, it seems to me that having the federal government act as the single payer would be the most cost effective method of providing health care to all of us.

". . . having the federal government act as the single payer would be the most cost effective method of providing health care to all of us."

The British apparently to think so and it seems to be working for them. In Jamaica, the government is only one of the payers. If they became the sole payer, the system would not be efficient.

I have no idea if having the U.S. federal government as the sole payer would be the most cost effective method.

It would unless it became privatized as has happened with many functions the various governing bodies used to provide. Then it would just become another Haliburton type looting of governmental coffers.

Throughout my discussions, I noticed that there is a fundamental ... may I say, "socialo-philosophical" error or better said confusion?

Basic NEEDS (among them health) are confused with human RIGHTS. NEEDS vs RIGHTS.

Phrases and meaningless ideas are uttered by politicians who keep exploiting the confusion.

Sometimes the basic needs become expensive and the problem we face is about the way to provide such basic needs when they call for help.

The basic needs are: Breath, food and drink, a place to sleep and feel secure, be object of love and education, homeostasis (health), excretion.

A human Being (HB) deprived of any of them, dies.

The question is then social: Is our society willing to provide NEEDS when necessary (in order to avoid death) or or is willing to deny them calling them "rights"?

Anyone can be depraved of "rights" and who depraves any one from any right applies some law while DENIES ANY ACCOUNTABILITY as such responsibility is not the one of the denier but the one of the applied "law" which is issued by or through any Authority.

To the contrary, if the society accepts to cover any "basic need" the the society accepts to be ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT.

Some needs may become expensive to the society, this is why some people deny any responsibility in taking care of such needs.

As far as health care is concerned many people would like to be on both sides of the problem, so they can keep denying basic needs but, simultaneously, want to be denying rights.

A woman, by herself, has basic needs. Can she be stripped of any if "able" to be pregnant? Any fascist society will answer positively. But then it is not any more "needs" but "rights".
Do the future fetus has "needs" or "rights"? The most basic right is the inheritance. Can a fetus inherit? But then the already fetus has needs through the mother. Per consequence should cost something to the society.

If the society refuses to acknowledge the needs of the future baby then it has to refuse the rights to the mother and vice versa.

But members of the society refuse to participate to these "needs" but want to grant "rights" to the fetus. This is contradictory.

The health insurance participates of such a dilemma: it cannot insure the fetus but the born baby, yes. But this implies expenditures to which, again, some members of the society refuse to be accountable for.

People who try by any mean to avoid any accountability are just transferring their own responsibility on the "law" which is, again, established by their own, elected or not, surrogates.

Finally, the question is about what type of society we want: shall we share the responsibility? Yes or No.

You have articulated the contradictions very well Gilbert. (Slight errors with the English :-D)

Thanks, Dennis. In this matter my French or Spanish would not be of any help either. The matter is dense and requires, maybe, some experience with dictators and their systems ending, all of them, the same way: fascism.