That is so true. The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees.
The reason that people buy health insurance is for exactly the reason that the insurance companies drop the insured; They cost more money than they spend.
The latter point isn't entirely true - at its core, buying insurance isn't necessarily about using more than you put in over time, but rather mitigating risks (hedging). That's not necessarily how everyone treats the current system, or for that matter how it's set up, but there's certainly a tension between the "insurance" model and the "health savings account" model (and the current system sort of tries to do both).
In terms of insurance companies being run as non-profits, let me ask two pointed (and I assure you, not-meant-to-be-trollish) questions:
1) If insurance companies should be non-profits with set salaries and so forth, why not just have the government do it at that point?
2) Two recently prominent examples of non-profits set up to further socially useful goals without actually being government agencies are Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those didn't turn out so hot. How would you set up these non-profits to avoid the same sorts of problems?
Actually, I should throw in a third: does anyone know of any examples (successful or not) of a non-profit insurance entity or cooperative?
The discourse on this site is great. No need to apologize for questioning anything. Here are my answers to your questions:
1. There is a big difference between government intervention and government run organizations. Government run implies inefficiency and waste. There will always be people that game the system. I am well aware of that, but if all the government did was make it a non profit it would do a lot to mitigate against the mass profitering that is going on right now.
2. Sallie Mae no longer has any ties with the government and Freddie Mac is a government sponsored enterprise. In fact they were both set up as government sponsored enterprises when they first started. Enterprise implies an entity that is in it for the money.
As for your third question I do not know of any but it would be enlightening if someone knew of one.
Heh. Anecdote about govt. run organizations: My wife and I, upon being told that the US Post Office only offered a service between 10 and 4, commented that that was rather inconvenient for those of us with a 9 to 5 job.
The response? "We're not here for your convenience."
If by "much more efficient", you mean "lethally long waiting times for treatment, limited choice and no means to estimate competency of treatment providers", then you are correct.
No, I mean much cheaper with better objective health outcomes. Or are you seriously suggesting that the current US system works better than (for example) the current UK system?
Perhaps a special fully transparent non-profit. You can pay employees whatever wage the market demands and with certain limits, like executive packages that have to be approved by "members" (policy holders).
As to your questions:
1 - The gov shouldn't do it because we want multiple of these entities, not just one. We need choice and competition, no single point of failure.
2 - It is common to say that extending home mortgages to higher risk groups, which Freddie played a role, was to further social goals. I simply do not buy it. Everything points to money. Extending these mortgages furthered the goals of the lenders and investment bankers and home builders as well. Look at who gave money to the politicians to make these policies happen. Hint: it was all of the above, except poor people. Yes, people who couldn't afford their homes benefited but they were not the lead players in making these policies happen.
As to your third question, companies that attempt to be more of a coop have to compete in the same market as the for-profit entities. I don't think you can solve this problem without leveling the playing field.
> The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees.
IIRC, Kaiser is non-profit.
If you think that you can do better, why aren't you doing it? You'll do incredible good for everyone, you'll drive the evil companies out of biz, and I'm sure that we will cut you some slack and let you get rich by whatever standard you deem appropriate.
The reason that people buy health insurance is for exactly the reason that the insurance companies drop the insured; They cost more money than they spend.