[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>> not HSA's.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 64% said they did not want government a single payer program   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I would wager that 64% or more don't even understand what a   
   >>>>>> single payer system is.   
   >>>>>> The same people don't realize that the subsidies in danger of   
   >>>>>> being cut from ACA were started due to COVID.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The only thing they understand about it is that someone else pays   
   >>>>> their bill.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       How is that different from insurance companies?   
   >>>   
   >>> How's it not? It's different in several key ways that promote   
   >>> choice, efficiency, and better care—things a government monopoly   
   >>> can't match.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>      "Efficiency" as in an anonymous   
   >> insurance actuary telling your doctor   
   >> that your operation won't be funded   
   >> because SHE thinks it is unnecessary.   
   >   
   > Here's how it's different in a competitive market vs. a government   
   > monopoly like Medicare for All -   
   >   
      
       Medicare for All is not a monopoly,   
   anyone can still buy insurance.   
      
      
   > Choice and Competition: With private insurance, if one company's   
   > actuary denies your claim unfairly, you can switch to a competitor   
   > that might handle it better. Insurers have to compete for your   
   > business, which incentivizes them to approve legitimate care to keep   
   > customers happy and reduce churn. In a single-payer system, you're   
   > stuck—no alternatives, no market pressure to improve.   
   >   
   > Appeals Work: Data shows that when people appeal denials, they're   
   > often overturned. For ACA marketplace plans, about 40-50% of appealed   
   > denials get reversed on internal review. For Medicare Advantage (which   
   > is run by private insurers), it's even higher at around 82% overturned   
   > when appealed.   
   >   
   > The key? In private systems, denials are often for cost control, but   
   > competition drives efficiency through innovation (like telehealth or   
   > preventive programs). Government systems decide via "anonymous"   
   > bureaucrats or committees, often based on rigid rules rather than   
   > market incentives.   
   >   
   > Real-World Efficiency: Look at single-payer systems like Canada's or   
   > the UK's NHS—wait times for specialists are way longer (over 50%   
   > wait >4 weeks in Canada vs. <25% in the US), and elective surgeries   
   > can take months or years.   
   >   
   > That's the "efficiency" of a monopoly: rationing by queue, not by need   
   > or innovation.   
   >   
   > Both systems have gatekeepers, but private insurance gives you   
   > options, accountability through competition, and faster access   
   > overall. A government takeover would just replace one set of deniers   
   > with another—without the escape hatch.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Competition and innovation: Private insurers compete for customers,   
   >>> which drives them to innovate, negotiate better rates with   
   >>> providers, and offer tailored plans (e.g., low-deductible for   
   >>> families or HSAs for healthy individuals). A government single-payer   
   >>> system eliminates competition, leading to stagnation—like how the   
   >>> VA system has faced scandals over inefficiency and poor quality.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>      Who do you think your insurance company   
   >> works for, you or it's stockholders?   
   >   
   > Profit motive actually aligns with serving customers better than a   
   > government monopoly would. A few things about this-   
   >   
   > Profits come from keeping customers happy and healthy: Insurers only   
   > make money if they attract and retain policyholders in a competitive   
   > market. Dead customers aren't good for business.   
      
      
        Profits come from taking in as   
   much money as possible and spending   
   as little money as possible. Every   
   dollar spent is a reduction of profit.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > That means negotiating hard with providers for lower rates, offering   
   > wellness programs to reduce claims (e.g., gym discounts, telehealth,   
   > preventive screenings), and innovating with things like apps for   
   > virtual visits or personalized plans. Companies like Oscar Health or   
   > UnitedHealthcare have rolled out tech-driven tools for easier claims,   
   > real-time health tracking, and lower-cost options—driven by the need   
   > to compete. A government single-payer has no such pressure; there's no   
   > incentive to innovate when you're the only game in town.   
   >   
   > Profit margins are actually quite low. Health insurers' net profit   
   > margins hover around 1-3%. The ACA's medical loss ratio rule requires   
   > them to spend at least 80-85% of premiums directly on medical care,   
   > limiting how much goes to "profits" vs. patient benefits. Compare that   
   > to government programs: While Medicare's overhead looks low (~2%),   
   > private plans handle more complex tasks like network management, fraud   
   > detection in competitive environments, and rapid adoption of   
   > innovations (e.g., widespread telehealth expansion during COVID came   
   > largely from private insurers).   
   >   
   > The alternative is bureaucrats, not "no one": In a single-payer   
   > system, the government works for... politicians and voters, but with   
   > no direct accountability to you as an individual customer. Decisions   
   > get made by committees setting rigid rules, often leading to rationing   
   > (long wait times in Canada/UK) or political interference. Profits in   
   > private insurance create accountability through competition—if one   
   > insurer prioritizes shareholders too much (e.g., excessive denials),   
   > customers switch, and they lose market share.   
   >   
   > Bottom line - the profit motive isn't perfect, but it drives   
   > efficiency, choice, and innovation that a monopoly can't. Without it,   
   > we'd trade one set of incentives (shareholder returns via satisfied   
   > customers) for another (political/bureaucratic priorities) that   
   > historically delivers slower access and less tailoring. Competition   
   > keeps insurers working for you to earn those modest profits.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Choice and personalization: You pick your plan based on your needs,   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>     LOL!   
   >>   
   >>     Your needs, or the stockholders wants?   
   >   
   > Stockholders do want profits, but in a competitive market, the only   
   > sustainable way to get them is by offering plans that actually meet   
   > your needs better than the next guy's.   
      
      
      
         Stockholders do not want a competitive   
   market, they want to buy out or strangle the   
   competition. Why do you think every merger/   
   buyout is followed by a rise in share value?   
      
      
   >   
   > Here's why that drives real personalization and choice - you literally   
   > shop and pick based on your life: On the ACA marketplaces or through   
   > employers, Americans choose from dozens (often hundreds in larger   
   > areas) of plans. High-deductible with HSA if you're healthy and want   
   > lower premiums? Low-deductible comprehensive if you have kids or   
   > ongoing conditions? Narrow network for cheaper rates, or broad network   
   > for more doctors? Plans tailored for maternity, chronic conditions,   
   > wellness perks (gym rebates, telehealth)—all competing to match   
   > different needs. In a single-payer "Medicare for All," there's one   
   > plan: take it or leave it (and private supplements are often banned).   
   > No tailoring.   
   >   
   > Profits are thin, and most money goes to care: Health insurers' net   
   > profit margins are consistently low—around 1-3% in recent years   
   > (e.g., 1.3% industry-wide as of late 2025). The ACA mandates they   
   > spend 80-85% of premiums directly on medical care. That modest profit   
   > incentive pushes them to innovate (apps, virtual care, preventive   
   > programs) and negotiate rates to keep premiums competitive—so they   
   > attract you, the customer.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)