Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hill2016

(1,772 posts)
43. actually
Sat Nov 28, 2015, 07:30 PM
Nov 2015

here's another point you should consider

private insurance funds roughly 30% of US health care spending. let's call it 900b in premiums collected out of 3 trillion.

out of this, roughly 100b goes to health insurance companies (processing, underwriting, fraud detection, litigation, marketing, and of course profits). most of this cost could be cut out by going to single payer, which would have its own administartive costs though.

on the providers front, how much could be saved by getting rid of all the administrative costs in dealing with many insurance companies vs a government agency? i'm thinking at least 10 - 20 %. of course this number is pulled out of my ass, but next time talk to your doctor how much he could save if he only had to deal with one government entity.

so if we look solely at the private insurance part, there could be substantial savings there in moving to single payer.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Thanks for posting this, elleng Samantha Nov 2015 #1
Thanks, Sam, elleng Nov 2015 #2
And it still includes insurance firms profit for providing no real service daybranch Nov 2015 #3
Maybe you missed this part Andy823 Nov 2015 #6
Please address the point made kristopher Nov 2015 #29
doesn't medicare get funded hill2016 Nov 2015 #39
K&R!!! This is excellent! Nt riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #4
It has merit....though I don't think "industry support" should be the goal Armstead Nov 2015 #5
did you read the part where unitedhealth hill2016 Nov 2015 #12
Frankly, that is the point Armstead Nov 2015 #21
Thank you. Enthusiast Nov 2015 #27
Yes. ACA has been in place for such a short time, and rising rates are already squeezing GoneFishin Nov 2015 #33
the reason rates are rising is hill2016 Nov 2015 #40
Great argument MFrohike Nov 2015 #36
Thanks elleng Andy823 Nov 2015 #7
Single payer includes negotiating hospital, provider and drug prices. Problem solved n/t eridani Nov 2015 #8
nope hill2016 Nov 2015 #13
If you'd read any of the actual single payer bills on offer, you'd know that price negotiation-- eridani Nov 2015 #18
Existing "single payer" systems don't allow health care profiteers to run roughshod over consumers. Enthusiast Nov 2015 #28
Kick to the top Andy823 Nov 2015 #9
A stop gap solution - but we still need to working for single payer Matariki Nov 2015 #10
Excellent Post, EllenG! Aerows Nov 2015 #11
It is about protecting the status quo because doing so makes certain people rich. Bread and Circus Nov 2015 #17
my only question hill2016 Nov 2015 #14
“Governor, you’re breaking the rules.” Crystalite Nov 2015 #15
Thanks and you're welcome, Crystalite. elleng Nov 2015 #19
As a physician I can say this is an interesting idea. Bread and Circus Nov 2015 #16
Insurance companies...meh. Still, I would love to see Sanders and O'Malley actually just discuss Live and Learn Nov 2015 #20
This sounds more like price controls and rationing than rational. Also looks like a libertarian idea Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #22
kick to the top. nt Andy823 Nov 2015 #23
Kick nt Andy823 Nov 2015 #24
k&r bigtree Nov 2015 #25
To me, insurance companies add zero value to the vast majority of Americans Jarqui Nov 2015 #26
+100%! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #30
4%, not 25% Recursion Nov 2015 #37
there is a lot of administrative costs that would disappear hill2016 Nov 2015 #41
Really? Jarqui Nov 2015 #42
you said hill2016 Nov 2015 #44
From the study referenced Jarqui Nov 2015 #45
The 4% is straight from CMS; it's hard to argue with Recursion Nov 2015 #48
I've been talking about the trillion dollars private insurance handles and %s related to that Jarqui Nov 2015 #50
Well, actually, you were talking about the percent of all healthcare spending, until you saw Recursion Nov 2015 #51
Those are not my accurate positions you are responding to. Jarqui Nov 2015 #52
They spend less because *they regulate costs* Recursion Nov 2015 #53
Nope, I disagree. Not accurate. Jarqui Nov 2015 #54
actually hill2016 Nov 2015 #43
The potential "administrative savings" is unfortunately another unicorn, I think. Recursion Nov 2015 #49
From the article above House of Roberts Nov 2015 #31
As long as you have significant parties involved in the process (like private insurers) Jarqui Nov 2015 #46
Really interesting. Thanks ellen, for posting! n/t ms liberty Nov 2015 #32
You're welcome, ms liberty. elleng Nov 2015 #34
kick bigtree Nov 2015 #35
Health insurance should be a public utility. Private insurers are bloodsucking leeches. Cheese Sandwich Nov 2015 #38
you do know that hill2016 Nov 2015 #47
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Best Health Care Fix ...»Reply #43