Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?
Posted July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm in Health Care 
Print This Post
Investor’s Business Daily writes:
It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage.
Instapundit reader Patrick Ying then responds:
Investor’s Business Daily did not continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. ” It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
So who is right? IBD is closer to the truth. Ying is right in that the House plan will not outlaw all individual health insurance. But he neglects to see the importance of the phrase “Exchange-participating health benefits plan” in the passage he quotes above. In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must confirm to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all drive up the cost of health insurance. Furthermore, all these new regs would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage. Until, of course, it becomes too expensive and they just dump you into the government plan.
So IBD is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed. But it will be effectively regulated out of existence… which is effectively the same thing.
Author: 
28 Responses to “Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?”
Dennis – Indiana on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Thanks for this blog. I just shared it with a liberal who said I was wrong, but I was correct. I sent them the web address.
J.C. Hughes, Texas on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Isn’t there a major conflict of interest regarding this whole topic? Government competition in free-markets? And they can’t be sued for influential strong-arming of private businesses? Obamaomics grows uglier by the hour. Fact is, it’s down right corrupt.
Joe Citizen on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Actually, no.
IBD is wrong, period. (not much of a surprise actually).
Your attempt to salvage the situation for them by claiming that regulation will put them out of business anyway is pretty lame.
Even if true, which it obviously isn’t, it would not represent “making insurance illegal”.
Why cant you bring yourselves to admit the obvious?
Adam Smith, Kirkaly Scotland on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
It would seem that the initial idea was to kill private insurance outright, gave way to a plan to allow private insurance companies to bleed to death. At the end of the day, the industry will be just as dead.
Pam, RI on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
The type of insurance one has will soon be a moot point if this passes. The most obvious and simple reason why the plan will not work is that there is no incentive for doctors who will work harder for less pay, and there is abundant incentive for illegal immigrants to arrive in droves for free healthcare. Let’s see, more patients, fewer doctors…that spells trouble for everyone regardless of what type of insurance you have. What will prevent this from happening?
me, washington dc on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Aside from the fact that IBD’s lazy, incompetent journalism completely misstated the facts, your attempt to backtrack and claim that private plans will be regulated out of existence is just silly and unsupported. Nice try.
The funny thing is that Heritage supported the exact same idea, on the state level, a few years back:
“The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange”
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1230.cfm
Joe E. on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
To the naysayers slamming IBD and Heritage…
You pull the “You’re lying!” card but offer absolutely no other interpretation of:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
They’ve rightfully admitted the technicality that the public option doesn’t “OUTLAW private insurance,” but if you’re too naive to extrapolate the inferred meaning from the bill, your vision is clearly being blurred through those rose-colored glasses.
How about instead of regurgitating the ad hominem schtick, you defend the literature of the bill and explain how the exact wording ISN’T an eventual drowning of private insurance?
IE: if you have health insurance through your job, you quit / get fired, start up a small business, decide not to work for a year, whatever… the only “option” you have is the public one unless you’re willing to pay the exorbitant fees tacked on to a private plan that is required to meet the “Exchange-participating health benefits” regulations.
Matt, Denver on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Investors Business Daily got this wrong. Way wrong. The section in question defines which insurance policies will be grandfathered in under the bill. If a policy is grandfathered in, it is not subject to the onerous restrictions on private health insurance that are set forth in the bill. For our sake, I hope that IBD’s story isn’t quoted by too many people because it will make the bill’s opponents look bad.
However, the provision in question should be scrutinized for other reasons that demonstrate why conservatives have a problem with the bill. Very few policies will remain grandfathered in and all new policies will be subject to the absurd rules that the bill lays out for private plans. This will SEVERELY drive up the costs of private insurance, which will make the “public option” a much cheaper alternative. I can only imagine the extent to which the bill will operate as a massive transfer of persons from private to public plans (at a great cost to taxpayers). So, while the bill doesn’t outlaw private insurance, it does almost everything it can to eliminate it.
Jean, Iowa on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
However you read this section, I have 2 problems:
1. If it is unintelligible to the people who supposedly know what is going on, how can this bill ever be legislated? Who is going to figure all this stuff out? It sounds like a whole new regulatory agency (a la EEOC, SSA) will be needed, at a hugely expensive cost to … yes, … the taxpayer.
2. How does anyone in Congress think any of this legialation will lower health care costs for ANYONE? Or don’t they care?
Ron, Belleville, NJ on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
If this version of socialized health care is so great, why is there buried in the enabling legislation a provision that Congress and all other Federal employees are to be exempted from the plan for the first five years?
If the plan is that good, let’s turn it around and use all Federal employees as test. After five years, those that are still alive will have the privilege to vote the plan up or down.
Bet there are no volunteers for this experiment.
Don Smith 83843 on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
How do the proposed health care changes
affect retired veterans?
R. Brossman on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
“It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal…”
Why doesn’t anyone ever demand to speak to the back-room boys who actually write these boondoggles?
Our illustrious congresscritters are too self-important to actually do the skut work of composing these monsters, and the boys that actually dream up the bill language need to be exposed for a little ridicule, or worse.
The back-roomers are actually running the country.
harv, Pa on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
I’m retired and don’t have to worry about my Health Care. They already made it illeagle for me to get Privete Health Insurance if I want to continue to receive SSI. When is someone in tte Republician Party going to STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! The Constitution has been walked over enough. IMPEACH!!!
Tom, Illinois on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
I am retired as well, age 66. Preliminary information indicates. the elderly, pending baby boomers, etc. will be subjected to edits formulated by the government concerning treatment. Consider this. A serious illness or injury could leave the elderly as subservient to the state concerning whether or not treatment is rendered or perhaps (i.e the unthinkable – ignoring the physicians Hippocratic oath) the elderly patient is considered as having fulfilled his usefulness and treatment would be too costly. Result: Prepare to die. Sad indeed. Take note: In Canada, age 55 is considered elderly. I like to believe I have at least a few decades to contribute to society and more importantly my family, grandchildren, great grandchildren. . I oppose any health care reform involving government. History suggests Socialism does not work. Government power is excessive already. Does anyone really believe government will somehow get Healthcare right? Give me a break. I’m dubious.
Jim, Michigan on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
It definitely will being tilting the table in favor of the “public option”. Either way it is the foot in the door moment for governments progression to single payer. Even president Obama says he wants a single payer system in this link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E
Beth, Maryland on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
The United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.
What NICE has become in practice is a RATIONING BOARD.
For example:
In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs — including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 — that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients.
In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other.
NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer’s drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not “cost effective” in early stages.
Other NICE rulings include the REJECTION of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis and AVONEX, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.
As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: “When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients.” Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.
The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions.
The Administration’s new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE.
But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.
Mr. Obama claims that he can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can’t possibly be done.
The inevitable result of this plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.
Rich, PA on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
I understand your point of citing Patrick Ying as your source for correcting the misinformation being spewed by IBD.
However, he was not the only one who noticed it and proved it wrong. Look at the first comment under the original article from IBD and on Investors.com, and tell me it doesn’t say USMCRich82… plus the numerous others. You should probably have said, “bloggers, commentators, and concerned citizens.”
http://usmcrich82.blogspot.com – The Angry American
John, Tampa on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
But the IBD editorial was not about “onerous restrictions.” That is certainly subject to debate, and I’m sure will be throughout the process. Their editorial was about “outlawing” private insurance, which is patently false. This attempt to salvage it is quite sad, and will only make opponents of health care reform look bad.
This piece simply uses the misinformed IBP editorial as a springboard to more anti-regulation rhetoric, and does little to set straight the hysterical among the right. You guys blew it.
Voice of Reason on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
This is too important to fall prey to fear mongering and conspiracy theories that are particularly noted on many Fox cable news programs as well as on conservative radio. All should realize that the giant Health Care Industry in American has increased spending with more paid lobbyist on both sides – GOP and Dems alike to stop health care reform in America. Note below the ranking of the world’s health systems provided by the World Health Organization. Strangely, how the Government option or single payer healthcare appears on the top of the list. Wonder why, The US Health Care 800 billion dollar a year industry is shelling out 1.5 million dollars a day with anti reform commercials. The record earnings of these US Health Insurance companies with one company posting a whopping 155% increased profit over last year at this time is astounding, but still, seeking more profits by raising premiums.
Note three video clips from the PPS’s Bill Moyers Journal in depth news regarding US Health Care industry. Second clip is an interview with Health Care Insurance executive, Wendell Potter with the truth behind insurance in America. You’ll have to copy and past link in a new browser.
Bill Moyer: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch.html, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch3.html,
World Health Organization, Ranking by order:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar
Voice of Reason on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
This is too important to fall prey to fear mongering and conspiracy theories that are particularly noted on many Fox cable news programs as well as on conservative radio. All should realize that the giant Health Care Industry in American has increased spending with more paid lobbyist on both sides – GOP and Dems alike to stop health care reform in America. Note below the ranking of the world’s health systems provided by the World Health Organization. Strangely, how the Government option or single payer healthcare appears on the top of the list. Wonder why, The US Health Care 800 billion dollar a year industry is shelling out 1.5 million dollars a day with anti reform commercials. The record earnings of these US Health Insurance companies with one company posting a whopping 155% increased profit over last year at this time is astounding, but still, seeking more profits by raising premiums.
Note three video clips from the PPS’s Bill Moyers Journal in depth news regarding US Health Care industry. Second clip is an interview with Health Care Insurance executive, Wendell Potter with the truth behind insurance in America. You’ll have to copy and past link in a new browser.
Bill Moyer: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch.html, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch3.html,
World Health Organization Ranking in order: 1 France, 2 Italy, 3 San Marino, 4 Andorra, 5 Malta, 6 Singapore, 7 Spain, 8 Oman, 9 Austria, 10 Japan, 11 Norway, 12 Portugal, 13 Monaco, 14 Greece, 15 Iceland, 16 Luxembourg, 17 Netherlands, 18 United Kingdom, 19 Ireland, 20 Switzerland, 21 Belgium, 22 Colombia, 23 Sweden, 24 Cyprus, 25 Germany, 26 Saudi Arabia, 27 United Arab Emirates, 28 Israel, 29 Morocco, 30 Canada, 31 Finland, 32 Australia 33 Chile, 34 Denmark, 35 Dominica, 36 Costa Rica, 37…….. United States of America, 38 Slovenia, 39 Cuba, 40 Brunei, 41 New Zealand, 42 Bahrain, 43 Croatia, 44 Qatar, 45 Kuwait, 46 Barbados, 47 Thailand, 48 Czech Republic, 49 Malaysia, 51 Dominican Republic, 52 Tunisia, 53 Jamaica, 54 Venezuela, 55 Albania, 56 Seychelles, 57 Paraguay, 58 South Korea, 59 Senegal, 60 Philippines, 61 Mexico, 62 Slovakia, 63 Egypt, 64 Kazakhstan 65 Uruguay, 66 Hungary, 67 Trinidad and Tobago, 68 Saint Lucia, 70 Turkey, 71 Nicaragua, 72 Belarus, 73 Lithuania, 74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 75 Argentina, 76 Sri Lanka, 77 Estonia, 78 Guatemala, 79 Ukraine, 80 Solomon Islands, 81 Algeria, 82 Palau, 83 Jordan, 84 Mauritius, 85 Grenada, 86 Antigua and Barbuda, 87 Libya, 88 Bangladesh, 89 Macedonia, 90 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 91 Lebanon, 92 Indonesia, 93 Iran, 94 Bahamas, 95 Panama, 96 Fiji, 97 Benin, 98 Nauru, 99 Romania, 100 Saint Kitts and Nevis, 101 Moldova, 102 Bulgaria, 103 Iraq, 104 Armenia, 105 Latvia, 106 Yugoslavia, 107 Cook Islands, 108 Syria, 109 Azerbaijan, 110 Suriname, 111 Ecuador, 112 India, 113 Cape Verde, 114 Georgia, 115 El Salvador, 116 Tonga, 117 Uzbekistan, 118 Comoros, 119 Samoa, 120 Yemen, 121 Niue, 122 Pakistan, 123 Micronesia, 124 Bhutan, 125 Brazil, 126 Bolivia, 127 Vanuatu, 128 Guyana, 129 Peru, 130 Russia, 131 Honduras, 132 Burkina Faso, 133 Sao Tome and Principe, 134 Sudan, 135 Ghana, 136 Tuvalu, 137 Ivory Coast, 138 Haiti, 139 Gabon, 140 Kenya, 141 Marshall Islands, 142 Kiribati, 143 Burundi, 144 China, 145 Mongolia, 146 Gambia, 147 Maldives, 148 Papua New Guinea, 149 Uganda, 150 Nepal, 151 Kyrgyzstan, 152 Togo, 153 Turkmenistan, 154 Tajikistan, 155 Zimbabwe, 156 Tanzania, 157 Djibouti, 158 Eritrea, 159 Madagascar, 160 Vietnam, 161 Guinea, 162 Mauritania, 163 Mali, 164 Cameroon, 165 Laos, 166 Congo, 167 North Korea, 168 Namibia, 169 Botswana, 170 Niger, 171 Equatorial Guinea, 172 Rwanda, 173 Afghanistan, 174 Cambodia, 175 South Africa, 176 Guinea-Bissau, 177 Swaziland, 178 Chad, 179 Somalia, 180 Ethiopia, 181 Angola, 182 Zambia, 183 Lesotho, 184 Mozambique, 185 Malawi, 186 Liberia, 187 Nigeria, 188 Democratic Republic of the Congo, 189 Central African Republic, 190 Myanmar
ickym on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
I suggest that all of you who think nationalized Health Care solves our US health care concerns for all, read all 1,000 plus pages of the proposed legislation. A surgeon this AM said she did and was shocked at what a bunch of lawyers, who know zero about health care had written. For example, retirees like myself will be mandated to see a government death expert every five years to discuss our death options. Didn’t anyone ever see “Soylent Green”? Our current government is scary and leading us all toward a form of government where we don’t want to go.
ickym on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
By the way, AARP said they agree with the legislation – so I am officially cancelling my membership to that nut case group. If the AARP is all about death, then why would anyone want to belong? I want to live and enjoy retirement after 42 years of working 3,000 to 5,000 hours per year. By the way, salaried employees did not receive any overtime pay for you youngsters.
Greg, South Carolina on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
I think that all Americans would love to see an honest health care and insurance reform, but this is a Frankenstein bill and needs to be defeated and a new effort started with the people involved and “intelligent regulation” in place. When you have some foundation damage or warped floors in your house, you don’t tear the the entire house down.
Birgit on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Greg is right call this a “franken-hellth-bill” to go perfctly with the Frankenfood”(GMO) they want us to eat, with frankenPharma standing by to finish it off.
Google: soft kill methods
Miller, Kansas on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
My concern is how will the courts read this section. If congress isn’t clear in how private insurance will be protected, the courts my end up outlawing private insurance when provisions of this bill end up in courts.
FrankJ, Louisiana on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Unfortunately, most of what I hear from proponents of ObamaCare is how much money insurance companies make, how many lobbyists they employ, wasteful spending by them.
I’m neither for or against insurance companies but I wonder why none of the proponents of ObamaCare demand that our government cleanup their act before demanding the insurance companies clean up theirs. Sure our administration system “NOT OUR HEALTHCARE” needs to be fixed. It’s not luck that we have the best healthcare in the world but if we pass ObamaCare, our high level of care will have to be sacrificed.
What should be untouched in any reform are 2 things. 1) maintaining a system that will provide the same high level of care and 2) we have a choice of insurance providers.
If Obama has his way, the brightest will no longer lend their talent to the healthcare industry and insurance companies will no longer exist for us to choose from.
Rebekkah Los Angeles on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
What I fail to understand is why the outrage of if premiums go up because you get sick.
If I go to a cafe, and eat an appetizer, and someone else goes to the same cafe and eats a three-course meal, they have to pay more.
If I don’t have any accidents, my car insurance will be less than someone who gets in accidents all the time.
If I only go to to the doctor once a year for a physical, my premium should refelct that.
The person who is unfortunate enought to get a catastrophic illness SHOULD pay more; they are using more!
They shouldn’t be getting reamed, but they should certainly be paying more than a person who is never sick. That is just common sense.
Sean, Virginia on July 16th, 2009 at 12:06pm said:
Keep this in mind: the Health Insurance industry provides absolutely no value of any kind to anyone but its shareholders.
With P&C and Life Insurance the participant uses their policy to offset risk; the insurance company uses sophisticated mathematic modeling to balance that risk, spreading amongst all policy holders.
Health Insurance companies do nothing like this; they simply play middle man and take 30% of the money in the system out as their profit.
When addressing cost (as with any business model) it’s the profit that must be addressed first. We’re talking about who takes our money, as insureds, and gives it to the medical providers (doctors, hospitals, pharma, et al).
So, why in the world are we defending this industry??? To hell with them. It is immoral to profit off the sick and dying.
MEDICARE FOR ALL!