"What is the value added of an insurance company?"

[Stinky The Clown]

I heard this today while the teevee was on in the background. It was someone on either the Ed Show or Matthews' slobberfest. I did not catch who said it.

It is the PERFECT - and Perfectly Strong - rejoineder to all the anti single payer crowd.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. There is no value added, although there is COST added. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

2. The only thing they'll say will be they are jobs. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

3. Should we be against the FDIC, as well?

Moral: When you abstract out, things aren't as simple as they might seem when looking zoomed in at the asshole health insurance companies.

[Just Saying]

7. Uh...The FDIC is a government program, right?

It's not the same thing.

[BlooInBloo]

9. A government-owned insurance company, yes.

[Just Saying]

10. Well, I think it's a different thing.

They are not in business for profit, but to promote trust and faith in the banks of the U.S. Not a bad thing.

Certainly the idea of insurance for say, your house is a good thing, but insurance companies in general have worked to manipulate the laws and gotten more and more greedy. Healthcare in particular does not fit the model for insurance in that those who need it most, cost the company the most and most likely can afford the least. Or, if paying in small groups as we are now, the cost is spread out, but the companies are SO GREEDY that they are making it unaffordable for many. The companies main goal is to make money with is directly contraditory to the needs of the people.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Ah.

[JBoy]

4. Theoretically, the purpose of an insurance company is to enable sharing of risks.

Your house "might" burn down, so you join with others, pool a little money, and that should cover the cost to rebuild someone's house if it burns down. There's no trust between individuals today, so you need another entity to fill the gap.

[babylonsister]

5. Prevailing 'wisdom', proving to be not so wise. nt

[RandomThoughts]

6. An insurance company is a middle man for an old concept

People use to get together to build a neighbors barn if it needed repair. Everyone in the village would pitch in a little work, because one neighbor was in need.

The theory of insurance is everyone puts in a few dollars, so the neighbor in need can have many dollars for things like health care. And I think there are many in the insurance industry that still think this way.

But there are some that do not think that way, and only see it as a way to make profit.

And while holding the collection they think the system is theirs so he can take as much out of the collected money as they can get away with. They do not get a few dollars from everyone to help the person that gets sick, they do it so he can graft off the collected money.

Now if some money was given to the administrator of the funds to cover the time he put into managing the fund, that would make sense, but the immodest gains of the people watching the collection, and the amount taken out of it, and even worse, not working for the same goal as people that put money into the collection, makes the situation not work.

But what is worse, is many of them still say their business is to help people and not to just make money. But I have heard a similar story before.

[grantcart]

8. discussed at length in this great thread by unblock

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8491325

[donco6]

12. The ONLY thing an INS co adds is access to huge reserves

Which cannot be matched by the US Govt

[sarcasmo]

13. Insurance is a racket out to make money, insuring risk is secondary.