superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,810
I see. I definitely read it as "goes beyond (controlling costs) to (controlling premiums)"I think you misunderstood my point.
I said, “What UHC is doing goes beyond [controlling cost to controlling premium prices].”
I meant the part in brackets to be take together as in you control costs to control premiums which is good. I meant that they go beyond all of that. Maybe should have said “go beyond controlling premiums prices to maximizing profit for the company at the expense of member’s healthcare.”
Apologies if I wasn’t clear enough.
I'm not sure how to evaluate your statement. Health insurance is a competitive market (even more competitive than people usually realize, because many employers self-insure but turn to companies like UHC to administer their plans -- meaning that an insurer is in competition not just with other insurers but also large employers). The only reason for UHC to cut reimbursements to the bone would be to lower prices. In the short term, I suppose, an insurer can jack profits by denying care. But if it's not passing those savings on, their business will dry up. What employer wants to pay the same to UHC for a worse product?
A market should sort this problem out (unlike some other of the more difficult issues). To the extent that it doesn't, it's because we run health care payments through employers, as I noted on the other thread.