With insurance my cost is 68$ US ... here in Germany without insurance it was 13$ EU
Insurance is socialism for profit and they are raking it in.
a few minutes later, and got some antibiotics
Insurance exists in Germany also and it makes some costs be lower, or even 0. Some medication will always have the same price regardless of your insurance status. But for example going to the hospital almost anywhere in Europe will never result in a tens of thousands or Euros bill for the patient.
This isn't a problem with the insurance concept, it's with what a government does with it.
so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
In the US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit. It really is that simple.
If you are getting a discount from you employer for your own products and services (cheaper Windows license as a MS employee) does this imply a socialist setup?
Check out the doctors who take cash only
https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...
The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter.
Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?
The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market.
The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.
Where I live different insurance providers offer different conditions. So depending on your needs and situation you would definitely find one offer far better than another. While there may be a "fixing" component hidden somewhere the system works very well and the result is both lower bills or even none for the patients, and lower bills for the insurance company. You don't see situations where the insurance would pay exorbitant amounts to the hospital because somehow applying a band-aid ended up costing hundreds [0]. Just because a system has a social component of responsibility doesn't make it socialist. It might just make it more useful and efficient.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fe...
In the US medical insurance additionally has an unchecked and largely unregulated profit layer.
It really is that simple.
Check the healthcare costs once more
- [In socialism]: the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Your claim:
- US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit.
Question:
Which part of medical insurance in the US is produced, distributed, and exchanged by society as a whole?
The largest medical insurer in the US is a commercial entity UnitedHealth Group with a membership of 49.5 million people. It's 20% of the adults in the US, but still can hardly be called "society as a whole". And yes, these 20% have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged.
Other insurers are, similarly, commercial entities, smaller in size, and people have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged.
---
Also:
- is car insurance socialism?
- is accident insurance socialism?
- are public roads, public schools, police, firefighting, army, coast guard socialism?
Socialism for profit