Health Insurance and Profits

[slaptyback]

This is a good example of what I mean when I say some industries should not be publicly owned becuase it is innapropreate for some industries to have a profit motive.  Profit motive in health insurance creates clear conflicting fiduciary responcibilities.  These conflicts become clouded by dollar signs, leading otherwise clever people to deny the

Comments

[touchofwinter]

Yeah, if there is a chance for profit to trump health with no regulation to say otherwise... well, it's like the article said - it's not that these health care companies are evil, they just need to turn a profit as any company needs to do. Ultimately they have a bottom line to watch out for.

I admit I am not very knowledgeable abotu health insurance. I don't have any so I have no immediate observations to make. That said, would more government oversight of health care really be such a bad thing?

[slaptyback]

I am intrested eagerly in hearing options that don't include as much government involvment, especially since polls say that Americans REALLY do not want a european system. Between these two extreemes; european gov't run plans and Wall Street plans, there is significant room for innovation.

[corporalyoyu]

Oh my god manbrains are so attractive. You two need to create tiny super-intelligent adorable humans someday with your equally smart wimmenfolk.

[touchofwinter]

Now, do American's not want a European system because they have a strong grasp of what that would mean and reject it on its merits, or because of television ads being run that promote the idea that our health system would catastrophically collapse with near volcanic force if we even consider the idea?

[bdeakin]

To me, it isn't really a problem inherent to healthcare-for-profit so much as a problem in that it's difficult to mandate a standard of care. Businesses are very good at doing what they need to do when the requirements and regulations are established, clear, and unambiguous and they will (and should) cut corners where able.

The reason I think it's relevant to bring up (above and beyond intellectual masturbation) is because I think there's opportunity in some areas, like manufacturing vaccines to a certain specification or performing some routinized work like drawing blood, where you you regulate and expect a reasonable outcome with little or no moral hazard.

On the other hand, you can't have a for-profit group that determines whether you have a right to see a specialist.

[slaptyback]

"To me, it isn't really a problem inherent to healthcare-for-profit so much as a problem in that it's difficult to mandate a standard of care."

That in my opinion is the rub. The standard of care should never be mandated, and really can't be because establishing the standard of care is part of the practice of medicine. Medicine by nature therefore is a poor fit for a for profit model. The real power and leverage of modern business practices like standardization are miss applied.

I also think there is much to be said for removing external profit motive while keeping internal profit motive. Private ownership and mutual ownership models still leverage the best part of modern business practices while preventing perverse incentives to harm the insured. I keep thinking of Bogle's model for the Vanguard group of mutual funds. The shareholders in Vanguard funds also own Vanguard. "Profit" due to shareholders is then translated to reductions in fees accross the board.

[slaptyback]

let me clarify, For Profit is cool, it's public ownership and being listed on the market that is the problem.

[bdeakin]

Health co-op. Interesting.