What are the triumphs of the insurance sector?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

zut212

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
What are the triumphs of the insurance companies, not counting their successes for shareholders?

I'm convinced that, although they are vilified in the healthcare debates, they must have also done good. Please tell me the good that they have done.

Members don't see this ad.
 
What are the triumphs of the insurance companies, not counting their successes for shareholders?

I'm convinced that, although they are vilified in the healthcare debates, they must have also done good. Please tell me the good that they have done.

The same good that any type of insurance has done. They pay for low probability catastrophic events that you couldn't afford on your on and allow you to get expensive care for these events.
 
The same good that any type of insurance has done. They pay for low probability catastrophic events that you couldn't afford on your on and allow you to get expensive care for these events.

I don't know that that's what they are actually doing. I think that is what they should be doing. But most people expect their insurance to pay for everything medical, not just catastrophes like emergent surgery. The overused but appropriate car analogy would have people expecting their car insurance to pay for gas, oil changes and all maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't know that that's what they are actually doing. I think that is what they should be doing. But most people expect their insurance to pay for everything medical, not just catastrophes like emergent surgery. The overused by appropriate car analogy would have people expecting their car insurance to pay for gas, oil changes and all maintenance.

Covering catastrophe is part of what they are doing. That is actually the part they do well. The problem is what you state, that people expect insurance to pay for basic maintenance and tune ups. These are basically guaranteed costs. Your insurance company charges you for them plus some extra for profits and then acts as a middle man between you and your provider.

Let's say the average American gets one checkup a year and 2-3 doctor visits for minor illness on average. They figure out that this costs roughly 1000 dollars per person. They charge you 1300 to cover these services, plus you pay copay, and simultaneously they bargain down the cost with doctors, increasing profit margin. Any savings from collective bargaining go into their pockets. Of course it's more complicated than this and they use more complicated metrics to figure out what you as an individual will use in healthcare (ie. more for women, more for certain medical problems, etc.), but that is the basic formula.

It is extremely inefficient, and hurts both patient and provider. The only beneficiary is the insurance company and its shareholders. People don't care though because these rising costs don't come directly from their pockets. Most insurance is paid by government or employers, so they just want the most coverage they can get. I think a positive step to decrease the cost of coverage would be to mandate that individuals need to pay a certain percent, or even all of their insurance premiums. Instead of the employers paying for insurance, they could pay that cost in salary and individuals would have to go out and get their own insurance with that money. This would put real pressure on companies to decrease profit margin and offer competitive premiums. Also you would see more people with catastrophic insurance, paying for the guaranteed costs out of pocket.
 
I think a positive step to decrease the cost of coverage would be to mandate that individuals need to pay a certain percent, or even all of their insurance premiums. Instead of the employers paying for insurance, they could pay that cost in salary and individuals would have to go out and get their own insurance with that money. This would put real pressure on companies to decrease profit margin and offer competitive premiums. Also you would see more people with catastrophic insurance, paying for the guaranteed costs out of pocket.

Good point. If this were to happen it would be incumbent on the healthcare industry to follow suit by reducing the prices of basic services to reflect the market, i.e. you can't charge $150 for a routine office visit, you have to charge the $25 you would have gotten from an insurer in the current system.
 
Good point. If this were to happen it would be incumbent on the healthcare industry to follow suit by reducing the prices of basic services to reflect the market, i.e. you can't charge $150 for a routine office visit, you have to charge the $25 you would have gotten from an insurer in the current system.

but wouldn't the price of catastrophic care coverage skyrocket to compensate for lost revenue? if so, i would think that even fewer people would be inclined to be insured for emergent events dumping the cost on the government and individual hospital systems. thoughts?
 
but wouldn't the price of catastrophic care coverage skyrocket to compensate for lost revenue? if so, i would think that even fewer people would be inclined to be insured for emergent events dumping the cost on the government and individual hospital systems. thoughts?

The price would skyrocket if the industry were to stay the same size. Ideally the humongous industry we currently support would drastically downsize to one that just deals with catastrophic issues rather than one that gets a cut of every healthcare interaction.

You make a good point. It also goes to show that we would need some massive changes to really get anywhere.
 
What are the triumphs of the insurance companies, not counting their successes for shareholders?

I'm convinced that, although they are vilified in the healthcare debates, they must have also done good. Please tell me the good that they have done.

Insurance is actually a marvelous industry in many ways, with a fascinating history, beginning with the dawning of man's awareness of the randomness of events which could take down an individual, but be managed by a group of individuals all at the same risk. The study of actuarial science is fascinating, and the different ways of evaluating risk of life and death equally so. There is the risk you will die too soon, and there is the risk you will live too long. Often the same company has to make both calls, on the life side and the annuity side! Mind bogling. It is also heavily regulated, and quite difficult to interpret, but sold by those who don't know what they are selling, as a result of the built-in complications. Nevertheless, it is a contract. And contracts in writing count, and pay, in all US states and territories and a lot of other places too.

Would you like some happy doctor-centric anecdotes? My husband is a neurorad, has had two, not one, but two, aortic valve replacements, courtesy of the health insurance industry, not without a fight about pre-existing condition, but a fair fight, with cause, and they paid. I recently provided a Roth-style Section 79 Plan for a doctor whose 40-something tech was given a free fringe benefit amount of $50K in life insurance. He died unexpectedly in a surgical complication, and his widow received 50K for the cost to the doctor who employed him of about $150. My dentist accidentally killed himself in his office passing out, it was supposed from using his nitrous, and blocking his airway when he fell. He left a young widow in her 30s, with four very small children, one a newborn. One of my husband's partners died from pancreatic cancer, as did his best lifelong friend, one at age 41, the other at 56, with lovely families who needed the support of every kind, one of which was the blessing of insurance proceeds received tax free, courtesy of Frankling Roosevelt, who is responsible for Section 101(a) of the internal revenue code to protect widows during the depression from paying tax on the little buiral policy they used to decently inter their working spouses without the indignity of paying tax on the burial policy they had paid $1 a week for, for years. I am sure I personally know of more, and these were all doctors! As close as you live to the line between life and death, relative good health and relative bad health, sometimes in spite of best efforts at healthy lifestyle, surely you are aware that there is a very basic human need for insurance, assurance, a safety net worth paying something for. In our litigious society, here is one you will like: among other things, mostly tax and business planning, deal reviews and investigating investment advisors, I sell some disability, life, long term care insurance but primarily set up captive insurance companies for doctors and businesses, so they OWN the insurance company and profit handsomely. Now, I have to get letter signed by clients who change their minds about the purchase of insurance. The letters tell me that it is their decision not to protect their family from their own remote but possible early demise, the primary breadwinner. I have to keep these in my files to protect myself, because agents have been sued by the families of deceased persons, whose agents did not adequately explain the risk of death, the consequences, and "didn't try hard enough" to sell the insurance to the deceased, who "had he known" he would die prematurely, would surely have bought the policy, and the agent therefore was negligent toward that family to the tune of the entire death benefit discussed with the deceased. How about that scenario? The world has gone quite mad, hasn't it?

Ask someone who is still alive and well and they will bemoan the money spent on insurance. As someone who has been touched by tragedy, which was eased by insurance coverage and you will hear a heart wrenchingly different tune. When I hear plans, which you will read on this forum all the time, about a doctor who plans to "self insure" until he saves enough to "not need" life insurance, I admit I cringe. I have lived a long time knowing that my own husband could die from going to the dentist, and I would gladly pay premiums, commissions and all, (although I know enough to be able to make them deductible) to have insured his life while our children were small, and because our retirement was devastated by taxes, downturns, children, moves, and the unknown unknowns of life's costs if you are lucky enough to pay your own way. Government workers have "insured" retirements, and I know how much healthcare they get, also "insured". As a matter of public policy, the tax breaks for health insurance are a subject of much debate, and many believe these benefits have led to higher usage (going to the hospital with someone else's credit card in your pocket or purse); there is not agreement, best I can tell, on whether this falls on employer or employee, as some will benefit more than others in partaking of the system, but theoretically employees will self-select for benefit-heavy jobs when they perceive a need for it, so their relatively smaller paychecks, theoretically, balance the cost to society. Do you believe that? Its a macro ec. theory, for sure...
Oh, and I live in Mississippi, where the fire department, hospitals and clinics tended to families truly devastated, including the many doctors whose homes were wiped from the face of the earth. I helped one doctor get paid probably one of the first replacement values for his swept away, newly remodelled homes, and another whose insurer persuaded his mortgage holder to forgive the mortgage on his no longer standing home...
It definintely makes the best of terrible circumstances, when you personally, in-your-face, and your own dear family, are the ones slapped all the way down one fine day...when you or they least expect it. Did I mention my Dad's acoustic neuroma, self-diagnosed in the 60s (before CT--he was a pathologist) who went to Drake in Canada to have his life saved, courtesy of, yes, an insurance company. Come to think of it, I think we have cashed in. I would love to buy more than they will let me...I don't need Tuscany. Would rather have peace of mind, no kidding. Did I mention I insure kids, babies, even against the possibility that they will develop an uninsurable disease, and that if you do this, instead of a 529, early enough, you can use cash value, tax fee, for college, professional school wedding or house down payment, or a sweet retirement. Imagine the things they will say about dear old departed Mom and Dad, when they get to be your age or mine! My slim and althletic 15 year old son became uninsurable with WPW, for a lot of coverages, and I am glad I got him that insurance when he was 11, and no underwriting was required, although it wouldn't have been picked up then. His future wife and kids I now don't have to worry about, which you know I would. Getting kids disability for Xmas, for same reasons. First, then IRAs. Just one vote among the naysayers. One friend in business says he had to face the widow of his best friend who had made exactly one year of contributions to his reitement fund, and that was the sum total of what she and her beautiful boys got--he swore that day to find a way to deductibly include life insurance in qualified retirement plans, which we can do today, for just the spousal benefit. It would have funded his entire retirement, for her. He didn't mean to die, none of them did... If you love your family, would you want them to do without you and move to a modest neighborhood and scrimp and have your spouse work while your kids wonder why you abandoned them? Those index funds won't do the trick when it matters most. A contract will. Especially with deductible or interest only premiums or both! So you don't even pay for commissions because of the tax savings...and your spouse and kids won't collect if they off you...
 
Touchadream,

This is the 'topics in healthcare' forum. The thread is referring to the benefits vs. the costs of the way we, as a society, pay for healthcare. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with life insurance. Nevertheless, thanks for your input.
 
Last edited:
Good point. If this were to happen it would be incumbent on the healthcare industry to follow suit by reducing the prices of basic services to reflect the market, i.e. you can't charge $150 for a routine office visit, you have to charge the $25 you would have gotten from an insurer in the current system.

Well not necessarily. In this system you can charge whatever you want for your services. You just won't necessarily get customers. If you are charging 150 for an office visit and the guy across the street is charging 25, people will cross the street. Then again if you have some specialized training, speak a different language, have a cleaner office, or any number of other variables, patients may be willing to pay more. It would be a truly competitive market which would both lower costs and increase quality.
 
Well not necessarily. In this system you can charge whatever you want for your services. You just won't necessarily get customers. If you are charging 150 for an office visit and the guy across the street is charging 25, people will cross the street. Then again if you have some specialized training, speak a different language, have a cleaner office, or any number of other variables, patients may be willing to pay more. It would be a truly competitive market which would both lower costs and increase quality.

You and I are saying the same thing it's just hard to tell because of the medium. Yes, under a free market system you could try to charge a very high price but the market would force you to eventually settle on a price that patients would actually pay. Sure you could try to provide extras and charge for them. You could also charge less and try to make up for it in volume. But you wouldn't be constrained by a whole bunch of contracts with various insurers.
 
Top