...you're expected to do one of three things: stay healthy, get sick and go bankrupt, or die. People who go with options "A" or "C" are "good," according to insurance company actuaries, because they're not costing the company any money.
Those in the "B" group are "bad" because they'll cost the system way more than they're worth and some poor for-profit entity is going to get stuck with the bill. So the industry does what it can to quietly move them from the "B" group to the "C" group. Amazing how effective denial of coverage can be when applied as a lethal weapon.
Thing is, we're not really talking about medical insurance; it's protection money paid to an organized crime syndicate to keep medical providers from stealing your house, cars, bank accounts and anything else that isn't fused to the earth's core in case something serious (i.e., expensive and maybe requiring hospitalization) happens to you.
The US is unique in the world in its child-like belief in corporate good citizenship and the intrinsic benevolence of a medical system based solely on profits. This is not only naive, it can't happen under US law and SEC regulations that demand a publicly owned, for-profit corporation base its entire business model on achieving one single objective: maximizing shareholder equity.
Anything that bumps the stock price is good, and anything that lowers it is bad. So paying claims is bad because it sucks money from the bottom line, while not paying claims is great because it saves money that contributes to corporate profitability, which ultimately helps raise the price of the stock, keeps the investors happy and keeps the SEC off the CFO's back for another quarter.
In short, it's literally impossible for a US for-profit publicly held medical insurer to live up to its opposing obligations to both its subscribers and shareholders at the same time. And, as noted above, if somebody has to get screwed, by law it's going to be the peasants.
Sounds like a case study in dysfunctional systems with a built-in set of unresolvable problems to me. You'd think it would never be allowed to get off the ground in a country whose leaders have even a shred of common sense. Unfortunately, we're talking about America here and we routinely choose leaders -- or have them chosen for us -- who are senseless, often stupid, generally uncaring, sometimes completely insane; and in the present case, all of the above.
Medical insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with health care except in the twisted minds of Chicago School libertarian fanatics and free market pitchmen. Break that nonsensical, artificial link, dump the idea of for-profit medicine entirely, replace it with a single-payer, universal-access system and spread the risk over the entire population in the form of a modest, progressive tax.
In other words, take a hint from the rest of the modern world where people pay far less per capita for their health care, never see a doctor or hospital bill and enjoy far better outcomes than in the US -- lower infant mortality rates, longer average disease-free life spans, a focus on preventative rather than reactive care, fewer stress-related illnesses and deaths per capita, and on and on and on.
And here's the final insult: We suck at keeping people healthy although we spend far more money pretending to try than any other country in the world. Here's
some info I got from doing a sort on the World Health Organization database and, lookie there, the US spends more money as a percentage of GDP than any other country in Europe or the Americas.
Which is bad enough, since most of these other countries manage to spend far less and still provide universal access to health care for all. But then you look at
this chart and discover that the US ranks 37th in the world in overall effectiveness of its health care system -- right ahead of that medical nirvana, Slovenia.
Finally, here's
an article I wrote in January on single-payer that might interest you if you haven't had enough of my writing style yet.
wp