Car insurance is relatively simple. I shop around, telling them how much coverage I want. They request my driving history, and give me a quote. At any time, I can shop around and change insurance policies without any problems. Once it’s time to collect payment, it’s a relatively simple matter. What makes health insurance so difficult, controlling, unreliable, and expensive? For example, with health insurance:

  • Can only shop during a specific enrollment period

  • Policies are so complex, the vast majority of the population can’t understand them

  • It’s commonly provided in part by the employer because buying a policy otherwise is prohibitively expensive

  • Insurance companies are notorious for denying payments

  • @mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    52 months ago

    Can only shop during a specific enrollment period

    With cars it’s relatively easy to determine if a particular collision occurred before or after you bought insurance. It’s also very hard to predict exactly when these commissions will occur. Consequently, it is not so easy to delay and only buy a policy when you already have a claim ready to go.

    With many progressive diseases, it’s much easier to wait and only buy insurance if you think it’s going to be expensive, but haven’t been diagnosed with anything yet. That’s why health insurance has open enrollment periods.

  • bluGill
    link
    fedilink
    62 months ago

    Because the customer and user are not the same people and insurance is keeping the costomer happy. High prices mean I cannot afford to quit my job or retire early. I have to have a job to have any form of insurance at all. It is great for the hr department that buys my insurance. In theory I can buy my own on the market but that means the thousand dollars a month my employer is paying gets thrown away.

  • @Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    -72 months ago

    You can get your own health insurance. Its called market place insurance. Most use their employers health insurance, but that option exists. And theres no “enrollment period”

      • @Kaboom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        -52 months ago

        Yes. With employment insurance, your employer pays a large chunk of it, its called benefits for a reason. Like 401k matching, if you dont use it, youre leaving money on the table

          • @elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            What would you call it? What’s your objection to the term “employee benefits”? You sound like you have an axe to grind, but I don’t get your angle.

            • @zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              02 months ago

              My angle is to paid the most. If we let the person we are negotiating with to define all the terms and conditions, then there is not much room to ask for more.

            • @cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Those things are a joke, have you ever been on Medicare? It’s terrible and are still strangled by private insurances at every turn.

              A few years ago, it was calculated that moving to a single-payer healthcare system and abolishing private healthcare would, at worst, increase an individuals tax to like <$1000/yr

              I have a fairly decent employer provided insurance and even then it’s still 500+ a MONTH in just premiums. Before even factoring in other private insurance bullshit like copays and out of pockets and a myriad of other fees and gotchas, I’ll exceed that 1000 tax bill in like 2 months.

              Even if you’re a selfish conservative asshole, it would save you so much money as well.

              But sure, keep listening spouting the rich elite propaganda, you’re just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire after all.

            • @db2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              42 months ago

              No, no, and yes until the so-called Republicans gut it and pocket the money.

              You’re not speaking the same language here.

              • @Kaboom@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                -52 months ago

                You really need to start saving for retirement, its never too early, and if you start late, it can still help

                • @db2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  42 months ago

                  Unless you’re offering to pay for it I’m in the same boat as many others. I live check to check, there is no extra.

  • Cosmo
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    I mean, people are more complicated and more expensive to fix

  • CrimeDadA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 months ago

    I think, from the perspective of the insurance companies, the risk is greater for insuring people’s health than their vehicles. Also, people’s lives are at stake, so it’s basically just a complicated extortion market. I don’t know I think all the pharma and healthcare industries should be nationalized and all the healthcare workers conscripted. Can’t be worse than what we have now.

  • @Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    322 months ago

    You, don’t have any bargaining power regarding your health. Let’s say you broke a arm, a Mundane thing. You’re in pain, and would do anything to make it stop. Once they give you some morphine, you’re high and can’t take any reasonable decision.

    Moreover, you can decide to thrash away a car, it happens all the time, you can’t do it with your life.

  • @litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    At its very core, an insurance company operates by: 1) pooling policyholder’s risks together and 2) collecting premiums from the policyholders based on actuarial data, to pay claims and maybe make a small profit. But looking broader, an insurance market exists when: a) policyholders voluntarily or are obliged to obtain policies, b) insurers are willing and able to accept the risks in exchange for a premium expected to support the insurance pool, and c) the actuarial risks are calculable and prove true, on average.

    The loss of any of A, B, or C will substantially impact a healthy insurance market, or can prevent the insurance market from ever getting started. For some examples of market failures, the ongoing California homeowner insurance crisis shows how losing B (starting with insurers refusing to renew policies near the wildland-rural interface) and C (increase in insured losses due to climate change) results in policies becoming unaffordable or impossible to obtain.

    As a broader nationwide example, an established business sector that operates wholly without insurance availability is cannabis. A majority of US States have decriminalized marijuana for medical use, and a near-majority have legalized recreational consumption. Yet due to unyielding federal law, no insurer will issue policies for marijuana businesses, to protect from risks that any business would face, such as losses from fire, due to a product recall or product liability, or for liability to employees. These risks are calculable and there’s a clear need for such policies – thus meeting criteria A and C – but no commercial insurer is willing to issue. Accordingly, the formal market for cannabis business insurance is virtually non-existent in the USA.

    With these examples, we can see that the automobile insurance market meets all three criteria for a healthy market, but it’s how these criteria are met which is noteworthy. Motorists in the USA are obliged to insure in every state except New Hampshire and Virginia: it is a criminal offense to drive a car without third-party liability insurance, meaning the motorist might spend time in jail. Note: NH and VA won’t send a motorist to jail, but they do have administrative penalties for driving without “financial responsibility”, which includes insurance or a bond at the DMV.

    The exact requirement varies per state, with some requiring very low amounts of coverage and others requiring extra coverage like Personal Injury Protection (PIP, aka no-fault insurance). The point is that criteria A is easily met: motorists want to avoid jail, but also want to avoid the indignity of being sued after having caused a road incident, in addition to protecting their apparently only viable mode of transportation.

    Insurers can take into account the overall trends in national risks trends for automobiles (eg new car safety, through the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS) as well as local or hyper-local risks (eg hail damage in the southeast, property crime in a particular zip code). And as a large country with nearly as many cars as people, many insurers are willing to meet the demand. This satisfies criteria B and C.

    So well-organized is the automobile insurance market that you could almost say that it’s vertically integrated: the largest nationwide insurers have contracts in place with every dealership network, auto collision chain, new and used parts dealers, as well as automatic data sharing with state DMVs, plus with firms like CarFax that buy information. Despite each state being slightly different, the insurers have overcome and achieved a level of near uniformity that allows an efficient market to exist.

    Things are drastically different for the American healthcare system and for American health insurance companies. While most think of their healthcare provider as a national name like Anthem Blue Cross or Kaiser Permanente, the reality is that each state is an island, and sometimes counties in a state are enclaves. Even federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare are subject to state-level non-uniformities. For example, hospitals can be either privately operated (eg religion-affiliated, or for-profit) or run by a public entity (eg county or state), and can exist as a single entity or form part of a regional hospital network. Some entities operate both the insurance pool as well as providing the health care (eg HMOs like Kaiser Permanente) while others dispatch to a list of contracted providers, usually being doctor’s own private practices or specialist offices.

    With so many disparate entities, and where healthcare is a heavily-regulated activity by each state, the cost of insurable risks – that is, for routine healthcare services – is already kinda difficult to compute. Hospitals and doctors go through intense negotiations with insurers to come to an agreement on reimbursement rates, but the reality is that neither has sufficient actuarial data to price based on what can be borne by the market. So they just pass their costs on, whatever those may be, and insurers either accept it into their calculations, or drop the provider.

    Suffice it to say, there are fewer pressure to push the total cost of healthcare down, given this reality, and more likely prices will continue to climb. This fails criteria C.

    financial flow in the US healthcare system Source

    Briefly speaking, it’s fairly self explanatory why people would want health insurance, since the alternative is either death or serious health repercussions, paying out-of-pocket rates for service, or going to the ER and being burdened by medical debt that will somehow haunt even after death. Criteria A is present.

    As for Criteria B, that was actually resolved as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). During discussions with the drafters, insurers bargained for an obligation for everyone to have insurance (aka the individual mandate, bolstering criteria A), in exchange for an obligation to issue policies for anyone who applies, irrespective of pre-existing health conditions. Thus, Criteria B is present for all ACA-compliant policies in the USA, even though the individual mandate was later legislatively repealed.

    So to answer your question directly, the costs for healthcare in the USA continue to spiral so far out of control that it causes distortions in the health insurance market, to everyone’s detriment. Specific issues such as open-enrollment periods, employer subsidies, and incomprehensible coverage levels all stem from – and are attempts to reduce – costs.

    Enrollment periods prevent people from changing plans immediately after obtaining an expensive service, like a major surgery. Employer subsidies exist due to a federal tax quirk decades ago, which has now accidentally become an essential part of the health insurance and health care situation. And coverage levels try to provide tiered plans, so people can still afford minimal coverage for “catastrophic” injuries while others can buy coverage for known, recurring medical needs.

    But these are all bandaging the bleeding which is unchecked costs. It would take an act of Congress – literally – or of state legislatures to address the structural issues at play. The most prominent solution to nip costs is the bud is to achieve the same near-vertical integration as with automobile insurance. This means a single or very few entities which have contracts in place with every provider (doctors and hospitals), negotiated at once and uniformly, so as to achieve criteria C. The single-payer model – which Medicare already uses – is one such solution.

    Going further would be the universal healthcare model, which discards the notion of health insurance entirely and creates an obligation for a government department to provide for the health of the citizens, funded by taxes. This means doctors and hospitals work at the behest of the department for the citizenry, or work privately outside the system entirely, with no guarantee of a steady stream of work. Substantial administrative savings would arise, since the number of players has been reduced and thus simplifies things, including the basic act of billing and getting paid for services rendered.

    These models could be approached by individual states or by the nation as a whole, but it’s unclear where the Overton window for that idea currently is.

    • @hakase@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      Thanks for taking the time to write such an informed and in-depth comment!

    • @WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      I find it hard to believe that a far market can exist when everyone is required or effectively required to purchase something. If you think of supply and demand, the demand for something like health insurance or legally mandated car insurance is effectively infinite.

      The decision to get car insurance or not is not “is the value this car insurance provides worth the money” it’s “is the value this car provides worth the money”. Similarly, the value of health insurance becomes the value of getting any sort of medical treatment, because it’s generally impossible to get treatment otherwise.

      This allows the insurance companies to charge rates far beyond the value they actually provide, because they are legal gatekeepers to far more valuable opportunities.

      • @HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        122 days ago

        Assuming that demand for car insurance is artificially inflated because people are mandated to purchase it, wouldn’t an open market still drive down prices due to competition? Another market that has even more demand is food. People aren’t even legally mandated to buy food. They either buy it or die. There may be a few people that can grow enough of their own food to sustain themselves without ever purchasing it, but I would guess that there are more people that make enough money to live without insurance than people that grow all of their own food. Despite that, food seems to be relatively affordable. If one food vendor is charging too much or I don’t like their product, I can easily go to a competing food vendor and purchase there. Adam’s invisible hand then ensures that the market provides an efficient quality-to-price ratio. I’m not arguing it’s perfect, but we don’t hear about how food stores are ripping us off as much as we do about insurance companies. My argument is that despite there being inflated demand, the insurance companies still have to compete with each other for those customers, which would have a considerable impact on price. Let’s say we all buy cars that are valued at $20k. If one company is providing insurance for $100/month and the other company is charging $150/month, everything else being equal, the former would earn more customers.

        Also, since demand is high, I think it would LOWER rates. Here’s why. If insurance was not mandated, then the people that would get it would include everyone that thinks they may need it. The ones that think they will not use it will avoid wasting their money since they’re not receiving anything in return. That means that there will be less contributions and more expenditures from the pooled money, making insurance more expensive. Mandate insurance makes it so that even the people that will not use it contribute to the pool, so everyone’s costs are lower than otherwise. Of course, this would only happen in a market that allows for competition. Otherwise, if there were only one insurance provider, they would be in a position to price gouge everyone since the only other option would be to break the law.

  • @Rookwood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -132 months ago

    Obamacare really fucked up the health insurance market. Open enrollment is because of Obamacare. Obamacare was written by the insurance lobby. They created a porous law and likely already had ideas to exploit it before it passed. And they have. It has been an incredible boon to them and Americans have suffered. Healthcare was NOT this expensive before Obamacare and insurance wasn’t this complicated and was more affordable too.

    Obamacare is the biggest piece of regulatory capture in our lifetime, and in a time of rampant regulatory capture, that’s saying a lot. It also showcases why our 2 party system is just broken. When the so called left option can produce such a broken capitalist piece of legislation.

    • @LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      22 months ago

      Open enrollment isn’t because of Obamacare. Your employer-provided health plan had open enrollment periods before the ACA.

    • @elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      I don’t think you can blame it all on Obamacare. I vividly remember wondering “How TF do people with families afford this?!” when looking at the individual vs. family insurance at a job back in 2002. Premiums were skyrocketing then, and they’ve been skyrocketing ever since.

    • @PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      You’re only partially right. There was a penalty for not having healthcare that was reduced to $0 where it has stayed since 2017. When that happened premiums shot up because healthier people decided to not get insurance. Considering health insurance is about pooling risk, healthier people left weren’t there to subsidize the relatively sicker folks. So, it’s also a problem of incentives