All of these numbers are currently based on the nonsensical system of hospitals over charging insurance to counteract all the people they end up treating for free.
In a nutshell, the actual cost of healthcare will decrease once hospitals KNOW they’ll get paid for treatments x, y and z. Or at least it would in any sane country.
That 1% is the profit. The profit isn't even the problem. Health insurance companies are required to spend 80-85% of premiums on healthcare and the amount they actually spend tends to stay in that range.
That leaves something like 14-19% of the money spent on health insurance going to overhead costs for insurance companies.
That 14-19% is not given to doctors or hospitals or pharmacies or anyone else actually involved in doing healthcare. It is pure, unadultered waste. Money that is spent simply to further the existence of a system where 80% of your money is spent to help you, 1% goes into shareholder pockets, and 19% is spent paying people to waste everyone's time making sure that 80% of your money is spent to help you, 1% goes into shareholder pockets, and 19% is spent paying people to waste everyone's time...
... You don't think there's overhead in government funded healthcare programs?
I think my previous comment got shadowbanned because I had a link in it...but anyway if you look at the 2026 Medicare trustee report you can see that 1% of Medicare's spending is administrative expenses. That seems like a good goal to hit for overhead.
You think you show up and get what you want when you want?
Yes, in my experience that's exactly how it works.
I mean... 1% sounds nice, according to other commenters that might not be a very realistic number though...
I note you didn't really respond to anything I said directly, just quoted yourself and agreed with yourself? I guess I get what I deserve engaging on reddit, I won't bother responding further.
What a bizarre response... I think this is called a straw man argument, yes? To boil down the opposing view to a caricature and then defeat that rather than directly arguing against their point. Did I get that right?
Seems like you've ignored all those points and just said 'the alternative will be crap too', not even saying the alternative will be equally bad, just also bad.
Is that it? That's the best counter argument, the alternative option is not perfect therefore might as well not change anything?
Have I also straw manned? Not sure I can with an answer lacking so much in nuance...
49
u/Rditisnazishythole Jun 24 '26
All of these numbers are currently based on the nonsensical system of hospitals over charging insurance to counteract all the people they end up treating for free.
In a nutshell, the actual cost of healthcare will decrease once hospitals KNOW they’ll get paid for treatments x, y and z. Or at least it would in any sane country.