Four things you might want to consider when thinking about paying for healthcare.

Go to main Forum page » on HumbleDollar

AUTHOR: R Quinn on 11/20/2025

People and money, especially when not actually their money, generates some interesting points of view and confusion. It sometimes seems to bring out the illogical. 

Health care and health insurance are especially volatile topics. I spend a great deal of time writing about health care on my blog and I spent most of my working life dealing with health insurance and related health care issues. I helped organize three HMOs. 

The cost of healthcare is a significant issue for most people and yet finding a workable solution is greatly hampered by misinformation and what people want to believe. Here are a few examples that derail efforts at improving our situation. 

Number 1 is defining “affordable.” When it comes to healthcare there are different ways of thinking about it. Most people focus on premiums because in any given year, that is all they actually spend. Spending significant amounts on health care is concentrated in relatively few people. For example, the bottom 50% of the population (by spending) only accounted for 2.8% of total healthcare costs.

Also, around 14–15% of people have zero healthcare expenditures in a given year. 

Number 2 is the role of insurance companies and their profits. Many people see the premiums they pay as going directly into insurer’s coffers. Of course that is not true. In fact, the percentage of premium revenue that can be retained for all purposes and expenses is limited by law. It’s called the MLR or medical loss ratio. It’s either 20% or 15%. 

In addition, insurance company net profits are low – 5% or less on average. Lower in most cases than regulated electric and gas utilities – another vital service. 

Also, insurance company premiums are reviewed and approved by state or federal agencies. It’s hardly a matter of charging what you like. 

CEO pay is often mentioned as a cause of high premiums. That is not the case. First, most CEO compensation is equity not cash. If you take the cash or even total compensation and divide it by the number of policies in effect, it’s clear the impact if minimal. One calculation I did came to about $10.00 per year, per policy. 

Some people are convinced insurance companies intentionally deny needed care to make money. Are claim denials? Are there wrong denials? Of course, but they most often occur through error in submission by the provider or insurer claim examiner. If you look at your coverage you will see words like “medically necessary, appropriate,” etc. related to care that is covered. There is plenty of room for interpretation, but the tendency is for the patient to demand what their doctor orders and want no questions asked. At the same time we and doctors know there is a significant amount of unnecessary care provided. 

The issue is more focused on managed care plans and Medicare Advantage Plans.  When I think about this I often wonder how many people, including health care professionals, it would take to willingly subvert their integrity to intentionally deny a valid claim payment.

Initial denial rates vary by type of plan, but 14% is a reasonable average-some denials are reversed. Given most large employers (covering 60% of American workers) are self-insured, they have control over the process and can and should assure fair claim processing. In this case, the claim administrator does not have a financial incentive to deny claims. Workers often don’t understand this because they may still receive an ID card from an insurance company. 

It’s a conundrum.  The thing is, without any review, premiums and fraud will be higher. Medicare audits have criticized its lack of concurrent review and delays in identifying fraud. 

Number 3 Mention Medicare-for-All and socialized medicine pops up, even though that is far from the truth. I had someone tell me recently that doctors are employed by Medicare. Another said “many” doctors don’t take Medicare. Less than 2% of doctors have opted out of Medicare, but because of low fees, the number is increasing. The other claim is that it would cost trillion$ and taxes will increase. Of course it would cost Americans trillions over a decade, not the government, but that is half the equation. 

Employers pay on average 8% of payroll to fund health insurance, employees pay about 20% of premiums, some pay more. States and the federal government pay for Medicaid and CHIP. Everyone pays out-of-pocket costs, some quite large. 

All that would be diverted to M4A. If captured correctly, there would be significant administrative savings for doctors and hospitals – and many employers. 

In other words, there is no reason for M4A to have a significant net cost increase. 

Number 4 Nobody thinks they should spend their own money on healthcare. It’s just not a pleasant thing to do. We want spending money to be a positive experience. Forty dollars is $40, but not really. Is it taking someone to the movies or a prescription co-payment? One is “affordable” and the other not. 

Will we ever have a better health care payment system? I am not optimistic, not in my lifetime, but in the meantime we will complain loudly about what we have-likely looking in the wrong places for a solution.

8 comments

  1. Medicare pricing for all will put a significant number of providers out of business within a year as Medicare reimbursements are only 85% of cost – according to Kaiser and various other studies. Medicaid pricing is only 75% of Medicare on average – varies substantially by state.

    Like

    1. Before we further disrupt health care with a M4All experiment, let try it out on some other essential, like food or shelter.

      Tried that in 1620, and almost starved to death as a result, until the Governor eliminated collectivism.

      Like

      1. That is not true at all. It’s a myth. The communal system hurt productivity and contributed to food shortages, but it was not the main reason the Pilgrims starved in the first winters. Disease, timing, lack of skills, and harsh conditions were more central to the high mortality.

        And you compare that with health insurance? Maybe some people with Medicare intentionally get sick just to be sure they get their larger share of healthcare. Or the dumb ones stay healthy and pay premiums they should have.

        Like

      2. just quoting Governor Bradford who wrote:

        ”…

        The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

        Like

    2. Correct. Applying Medicare payments to the entire population would not work so it would have to be somewhere between current rates and private insurance rates.
      M4A does not mean we take the existing Medicare and enroll the entire population. It’s a concept requiring several modifications.

      Like

      1. however, once you forego limiting provider revenue, you again are a hostage of the medical community – so many changes, and you have what we have today, but at an ever greater cost.

        Like

  2. A form of Medicare for All, universal and uniform coverage, no choices. Every American in the same risk pool funded by a combination of payroll taxes from employers and workers, premiums and out of pocket cost sharing.

    Like

Leave a Reply