Why are there not more non-profit insurance companies?

[BenIsForRon]

This question baffles me. It seems like something like that would form, especially with over 40 million uninsured Americans. If they didn't worry about increasing profit margins, marketing, and other excess costs, couldn't they step in and fill that void?

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

The latest episode of Bill Moyers is all about the crisis. It shows clear evidence of Republicans reciting, point for point, insurance company memos. So John Boener is not our friend at all in this, as he would like for his buddies to maintain control over the system.

So, given the obvious lopsided nature of our system, why hasn't a not for profit system arose to meet that huge demand from the non-insured?

 

[Optatron]

there are insurance companies that CLAIM TO BE non-profit, or not-for-profit.
but they probably won't meet your standard once you see their costs and overhead.

why aren't there more non-profits? why aren't there more charities....

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT, SILLY!

Seriously though, the geniuses who want to leave everything to charities, why aren't they available today?

 

[jsu718]

A lot of times companies that are non-profit are far more inefficient than those that are for-profit. Non-profits usually have very little motivation to do things very well, while the bottom line in terms of profit is a very strong motivator.

 

[Optatron]

A lot of times companies that are non-profit are far more inefficient than those that are for-profit. Non-profits usually have very little motivation to do things very well, while the bottom line in terms of profit is a very strong motivator.

but if you're non-profit, you don't need to take complaints and criticism seriously either, because you don't answer to anybody.

 

[BenIsForRon]

But insurance companies are only efficient in the sense that they are good at systematically denying coverage to increase their profits and share value. On the flipside they spend millions on advertising, and then millions more on lobbying congress. So, in the long run, they are burning cash that would be better (in the moral sense) spent covering more people for a cheaper price. There has got to be another way to insure people in the free market.

I guess I could do the research myself, but I'm hoping there will be some informed folks here with some relevant knowledge.

 

[angelatc]

There are some self-insured companies.

The best system we had was the system where people only carried major medical policies. They paid for routine care out of pocket.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I wonder what it would cost to open a SELF-NON-PROFIT company for Friends & Family. Include Auto/Life/Home too.

or the philosophical response:

Because there's NO PROFIT in running a NON PROFIT.

 

[angelatc]

I wonder what it would cost to open a SELF-NON-PROFIT company for Friends & Family. Include Auto/Life/Home too.

or the philosophical response:

Because there's NO PROFIT in running a NON PROFIT.

Credit unions seem to have made a decent go of it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why is the mafia not non-profit?

The protection racket could pass on savings to their "customers" if they went non-profit...

 

[MelissaWV]

Non-profit insurance companies... would be your credit card, savings account, friends, family, and local charity. Pay for your expenses and bills, then pay them back as possible. The credit cards do make a handy bit of money off of you, of course. Why should an insurance company offer you credit (that IS what it is) and then not charge "interest" and "fees" as well? There are alternatives out there to your run of the mill insurance. There are MSA's and other such funds out there.

People DID used to just have major medical... and you had to pay for your minor checkups. You went when something was terribly wrong, not when you had the sniffles.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Why is the mafia not non-profit?

The protection racket could pass on savings to their "customers" if they went non-profit...

Hee Hee... Oh I can see it now...

"Hello Guido, Nick, & Vinnie... Charlie Rangel, Carolyn Maloney, and Chuck Schumer are stealing from me, raising my costs and taxes for my business and income. Me and my family are suffering."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! No Problem, Consider it done!

 

[LibForestPaul]

But insurance companies are only efficient in the sense that they are good at systematically denying coverage to increase their profits and share value. On the flipside they spend millions on advertising, and then millions more on lobbying congress. So, in the long run, they are burning cash that would be better (in the moral sense) spent covering more people for a cheaper price. There has got to be another way to insure people in the free market.

I guess I could do the research myself, but I'm hoping there will be some informed folks here with some relevant knowledge.

I CALL BS ON THIS PRESUMPTIVE OPINION.

The insurance companies need to be vigilant, against fraud and abuse, both from patients AND medical providers. There are more than just a few corrupt doctors, physical therapists, and other providers.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This question baffles me. It seems like something like that would form, especially with over 40 million uninsured Americans. If they didn't worry about increasing profit margins, marketing, and other excess costs, couldn't they step in and fill that void?

[url]http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html[/URL]

The latest episode of Bill Moyers is all about the crisis. It shows clear evidence of Republicans reciting, point for point, insurance company memos. So John Boener is not our friend at all in this, as he would like for his buddies to maintain control over the system.

So, given the obvious lopsided nature of our system, why hasn't a not for profit system arose to meet that huge demand from the non-insured?

Logically, the risk in insuring anything-especially "health"-makes the non-profit route impractical (as far as I know).

 

[nayjevin]

Insurance would not be necessary for most people if government intervention in industry (regulations mostly) hadn't made costs exorbitant.

For those who still couldn't afford it at it's low cost without government, there would be companies happy to insure them, at a premium.

That's what insurance is -- I can't pay an emergency cost if it came up, so I pay a company every month who will - and they are gambling that they have set my monthly premium high enough that, in the long run, they will make money.

 

[nayjevin]

PS what does a saline IV drip cost an insurance company or consumer in the status quo?

What would a company charge for bags full of saltwater in a free market?

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

PS what does a saline IV drip cost an insurance company or consumer in the status quo?

What would a company charge for bags full of saltwater in a free market?

I'll save you the time reading the report on hospital charges to insurance companies...

[url]http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-11-06/s71106-28.pdf[/URL]

This is from charge from 3 years ago:

Hospital overcharges; e.g.,
$100 for an aspirin,
$50 for a "mucous recovery device" (tissue), and
$25,000 for one hour in the ER to set a broken finger,

cost health plans tens of thousands of dollars. If you and your organization, along with every other responsible division of government, do not immediately take action to hold responsible all who feast at the financial trough of free flowing healthcare, then the system will bankrupt society. Nothing will be there to assist individuals who truly have significant medical needs.

 

[Acala]

They exist

They are called "mutual" insurance companies. I have my car and home insurance with a mutual company. When they make a profit, they divide it up and send out checks to the members. I used to get a check every year but not for last year. Insurance companies are huge investors and when the stock market tanks they eat it.

Low price, great service. USAA!!!

 

[Working Poor]

insurance what a rip off....

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

The very nature of insurance / third-party payers is inefficient. The consumer is not the same person paying the bill, so the consumer is likely to consume more than he would if he were paying. The doctor is more than happy to provide more care than is needed since someone else is paying the bill. And a few unethical doctors may also be happy to charge the insurance company for more than the service provided since the care recipient and the payer are not the same person and generally don't compare notes.

Insurance (and govt involvement) is the CAUSE of inflation in health care.

 

[BenIsForRon]

They are called "mutual" insurance companies. I have my car and home insurance with a mutual company. When they make a profit, they divide it up and send out checks to the members. I used to get a check every year but not for last year. Insurance companies are huge investors and when the stock market tanks they eat it.

Low price, great service. USAA!!!

Thanks, I looked at some mutual companies, many of them seem to have a pretty sustainable business model. I guess because of the inflated price of medical care, many people can't afford to join a mutual company.

Question is, how do we get medical care expenses to go down? I think I need reread that healthcare chapter in The Revolution?