345
‘Make money by denying care’: new US rules aim to curb use of approval by private health insurances
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
345 points (98.6% liked)
News
23435 readers
2610 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
health insurance companies profit can only exist at the cost of human suffering. there is absolutely no way around it.
Government run single payor is a way around it. I will cackle like a supervillain the day all these leeches lose their bullshit jobs.
Sure, because there job is to ease the monetary burden of suffering events. That doesn't mean they have to act like they do.
The real problem in the US is most people are not the customer for their health insurance - their employer is. In theory I can buy heath insurance from someplace other than my company, but I'm throwing away $1000/month (more or less - it is hard to find the real number) that I'd have to find if I went elsewhere. That means either insurance I get on my own is worse than what I have, or I have a lot less money for other things.
Which is why I've long said that to solve the US problems we need to remove the tax breaks for company sponsored health insurance. Once that happens I can actually decide which insurance company is the best for me.
Their job is to extract profits from people who need healthcare, and ease the monetary burden on the business by denying as many claims as possible to increase profits. Preventative care would benefit them in the long run along with the population that they 'serve', but short term profits don't care about the long term.
people switch insurance when they switch jobs so the math is deny and let it' be another insurance company's problem
You might know this, just adding it as context.
Prior to Obamacare insurance companies would deny things like cancer when you switched insurances by calling it a 'preexisting condition'. As in you had cancer before signing up for their insurance.
Companies loved this because it made their employees afraid to leave because their current insurance might cover their treatments, but switching jobs most likely mean that their new insurance wouldn't.
The requirement to honor a "Certificate of Credible Coverage" with like a 30-day gap was a fucking godsend, and even then, health plans still didn't have to cover any minimum set of services, medications, procedures, etc. like they do under the ACA. Insurance providers were free to just be like, "No, we don't cover chemo at all, period, fuck off." But more common, by far, was simply not covering prescriptions. Like, at all. You go to the doctor, get fixed up, and here's to hoping the meds they want to give you are generic, because you're paying out of pocket.
It's the persistent lie of the free market.
Yes, in theory if health insurance were a transparent, understandable product that you could easily switch with another one as an individual based on your needs and costs, market competition would optimize that product rapidly for service and cost.
But every single thing about that theory is wrong.
It's an intensely opaque process. You have no real way to know what the costs are going to be, what your needs will be, what your options will be. You can't even know what a doctor's appointment will cost under healthcare until you get the bill, sometimes a full year later (at least in my experience. Nothing about healthcare costs are understandable even to someone with an advanced medical degree. The layperson has no hope.
You also cannot easily switch it with another product. Open enrollment and contracts severely limit you. There's only fixed, stressful windows where you can change it -- and even then, you're back to point 1. What is the difference between the two plans in actual practice? It's all just gambling.
As you already observed, if your employer offers healthcare, you basically have no choice but to use that product because the subsidies are so intense. You are not an individual. The individual plans suck, are intensely expensive, and usually both across-the-board. The ONLY affordable option for the average person is the employer-offered product, so your choices are severely limited.
And it go this way because the most powerful agents in this system are not individuals.
With home/auto insurance, basically everything gets driven to a commodity product because all costs and risks are pretty uniform and predictable. That's why there is vanishingly little difference in the core products being offered by these kinds of insurance companies, and why the idea that switching your plan is sure to save you gobs of money is... improbable, outside of just periodic renegotiation of rates.
With health, the costs and risks are WILDLY unpredictable. The difference between an "expensive" customer and a cheap one is many, many orders of magnitude.
So naturally, risk must get hedged. The system's need for efficiency is going to try and package people together, just like any other high-risk, low-reward financial product. The need to group people is obvious, so we made it mandatory for employers to provide insurance as a weird workaround to the logical thing of government-run insurance. Now the customers are primarily employers who have TOTALLY different needs and desires from cheap, high-quality healthcare service. The free market will now do its work and optimize based on supply and demand. The efficiency gains will benefit the vendors (insurance companies) and the customers (employers). Individuals are not benefiting from market forces at all.
Free markets are great systems where they apply. They're really good for rapidly assembling efficient systems to get products to customers. But they only work where they work. The persistent lie of the free market is that EVERY problem can be solved with a free market. Nope. Only certain problems can. And where free markets don't work, that typically means you have need of government to step in instead.
I don't understand why enrollment periods are a thing and I'm just assuming it's just an excuse to screw us
With group policies, it means that the insurance companies can do their actuarial work on the entire group in aggregate without having to have considerations about prorating based on certain individuals entering or leaving the policy throughout the year.
At least ostensibly. I doubt this actually happens. It's mostly just a way to limit administrative overhead for both the insurance companies and the employers.
Don't think for a moment that employers don't like the whole open enrollment system too. Even if they CLAIM it is a PITA, it lets them only have to deal with this work for newly-qualified employees, separations, and otherwise only once a year.
Either way, it's ~~of no benefit~~ only harmful to the actual consumers of the insurance. But since individuals aren't the customers, that doesn't matter.
That will never happen. Healthcare being tied to employment is what keeps people from quitting shit jobs.
Despite this, every time you point it out, people come out of the weeds to defend health insurance.