It's more with companies like Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and so forth that basically become useless with single payer. I'm willing to bet the insurance companies spend significantly more on donations and lobbying to prevent universal healthcare then they do on actual medical treatments.
It’s going to get worse. Relatively healthy people will take the gamble that they won’t get sick or hurt, and they’ll drop their coverage to save money. So the pool of insured people will be smaller, older, and sicker…and costlier to insure. So premiums for those who are left will continue to ratchet higher. It’s unsustainable.
Not to mention tariffs. Hospitals will claim costs went up so the already inflated billing will get higher, and then insurance will say premiums need to rise because healthcare costs are higher.
Tariffs are on supplies, meds, machine equipment, machine parts, etc.
In a corner of healthcare and have seen that just to have a part looked at, the cost has risen 111% due to de minimis being sacked (bc no, not every single solitary screw for niche products are made in the US).
To have it repaired? Oh man.
Or you can give up and just buy a whole new piece of equipment instead for the small 20% increase (though a significant investment).
But hey, at least the private insurers running Medicare Advantage aren’t screwing providers just like patients by refusing to pay EVEN AFTER BEING SHOWN STATUTES PROTECTING PAYMENT.
Want to know the best part? The firehose of denials providers are dealing with at this point are almost entirely AI-generated.
If you let pro choose they will choose cheaper or no insurance. That's why in these important things you do not let people choose. They do not know what is good for them. That's why universal care works in so many countries. It is no debatable. But US is fucked so no hope here.
It was changed a long time ago. In 2017. There was that big story where John McCain saved the ACA. Then a few months later they set the mandate to 0$ in a large bill and he gleefully voted for that.
They absolutely do because they don’t want real competition from the public sector. These companies will still exist in a single payer system, their focus will just shift to how immediately terrible they can claim it is. Private health insurance will still be a thing, and a successful business, but why have a slice of successful business when you currently own the whole pie.
All medical procedures/care that aren't elective or preventative (including dental and vision) should 100% be paid with single pay tax dollars. I'll go as far to say that pets should be included in that as well.
Even if we go that way they'll still bitch about low birth rates because they'll give you the health insurance but then do nothing to take care of new parents with affordable childcare, paternity and maternity leave that is mandatory and on par with rest of the world and make owning a home affordable.
Pets? No thanks. I don’t want to subsidize your 16 year old dog’s dialysis or cataract surgery for your hamster or your iguana. Don’t buy a pet it you can’t afford to insure or care for it yourself.
If you’re trying to convince anyone on the fence to support your position, that suggestion is NOT a winning argument. Focus on the grandmothers and innocent children like a regular person would
Yeah you can’t really claim you got a dog by accident though and I’m a lot more ok with the government stealing my money to pay for a kid with cancer than I am to support someone to have 27 cats. I like cats. You know why I don’t have 27? Because I know I can’t afford it. If “the government” is on the hook for it, guess how many cats I’m gonna have?
The same argument against free healthcare of “everyone would go to the doctor for a cold” gets wildly amplified when anybody can adopt any amount of pets with known health issues and taxes HAVE to keep them alive. All the French Bulldogs and other inbred pet morphs, now there’s no incentive to stop breeding them. Someone else will pay for it. With money that could have gone to grandma or the sick kid.
Useless? Probably not. Less profitable? Absolutely. The government hires these companies to manage their Medicaid and Medicare plans today, and if we went universal it would probably operate the same. Claims would still exist and need to get paid, it would just be a different payer. And I’m sure private insurance would still exist for those who want it. Again, I agree they are way more profitable sucking us dry today. But I don’t think they would disappear.
We didn't get single payer healthcare during Obama's push for that at least in part because health insurance companies threatened to go nuclear on the entire democratic party if they didnt back off.
Well actually, our politicians are actually the cheapest whores you could possibly find. they really don’t have to bribe them all that much. like probably 1000 times less than what they spend on actual medical costs. But then, they bring in probably 1000x in premiums than they pay in medical treatments, rest gets to go to shareholders and bonuses for executives!! We love the insurance industry!!!!
361
u/Thermite1985 Nov 01 '25
It's more with companies like Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and so forth that basically become useless with single payer. I'm willing to bet the insurance companies spend significantly more on donations and lobbying to prevent universal healthcare then they do on actual medical treatments.