Eliminating Private Insurance: A Step Towards Universal Healthcare

The debate around banning private health insurance has been a hot topic in American politics, with some Democratic presidential candidates supporting the idea as part of a Medicare For All plan. However, the idea of banning private insurance is not without controversy, and there are several arguments for and against it.

Proponents of banning private insurance argue that it would ensure equal access to healthcare for all, regardless of income. They believe that private insurers can limit their customer pool by charging high premiums, which could allow them to reimburse healthcare providers at a higher rate than the government. This could create a two-tier health system, where those with private insurance receive better care than those relying on public insurance. Additionally, private insurance companies have been criticised for contributing to healthcare inflation, wasting money on administrative and marketing costs, and having too much political and economic power.

On the other hand, opponents of banning private insurance argue that it would disrupt the healthcare industry, which is a major employer in the US. They also believe that it could lead to longer wait times for medical treatments and would remove the freedom of choice for doctors or hospitals. Some also argue that private insurance is necessary to cover things that universal healthcare might not, such as vision care and prescription drugs.

The debate around banning private health insurance is complex and multifaceted, and it remains to be seen what direction the US will take in terms of healthcare policy.

Private insurance is incompatible with the principle of healthcare as a right

Private health insurance is incompatible with the principle of healthcare as a right. Healthcare as a right assures equal access to care for all people regardless of income, whereas the insurance principle requires each grouping in society to pay its own way. Private health insurance, therefore, undermines the principle of healthcare as a right in several ways.

Firstly, it contributes to healthcare inflation and wastes billions in administrative and marketing costs. This increases the overall cost of healthcare and makes it less accessible to those with lower incomes.

Secondly, it is unfair to many groups in society. Private health insurance companies can limit their customer pool by charging high premiums, which disproportionately affects those with lower incomes. This creates a two-tier healthcare system where those who can afford it receive better treatment.

Thirdly, private health insurance has far too much political and economic power. This can lead to a situation where the interests of insurance companies take precedence over the needs of the population, further exacerbating inequality in access to healthcare.

Finally, private health insurance can undermine positive features of health maintenance organisation reform. For example, in the US, employer-sponsored group health insurance has approximated healthcare as a right. However, the insurance principle is eroding this right, as private health insurance companies can reject those with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher premiums, making it difficult for those with chronic illnesses to access affordable care.

In conclusion, private health insurance is incompatible with the principle of healthcare as a right because it prioritises profit over equal access to care, leading to increased costs, inequality, and a weakening of health maintenance organisation reform.

Private insurance contributes to healthcare inflation

Private insurance has been found to contribute to healthcare inflation. This is due to several factors, including the way in which private insurance companies operate within the healthcare system.

Firstly, private insurance companies have been criticised for contributing to rising healthcare costs by increasing their premiums. In the United States, for example, private insurance premiums have risen sharply in recent years, outpacing wage growth for many Americans. This trend has resulted in a growing proportion of household incomes being spent on healthcare services and insurance premiums.

Secondly, private insurance companies often negotiate higher reimbursement rates for healthcare providers compared to public payers. As a result, healthcare providers may prioritise patients with private insurance coverage, creating a two-tiered healthcare system where those with private insurance receive faster or better treatment. This dynamic can further drive up healthcare costs as providers seek to maximise their revenues.

Thirdly, the administrative costs associated with private insurance can also contribute to healthcare inflation. The complexity of managing multiple insurance companies with varying reimbursement rates and benefit structures adds significant overhead for healthcare providers. This includes the costs of billing, claims processing, and contract negotiations. These administrative costs are ultimately passed on to patients, contributing to rising healthcare costs.

Finally, private insurance companies often have significant political and economic power, which can influence healthcare policy and pricing. They may lobby governments to enact policies favourable to their interests, which can result in increased healthcare costs for consumers.

For these reasons, there have been calls to abolish or restrict private health insurance to curb healthcare inflation and ensure equal access to quality healthcare for all citizens.

Private insurance wastes billions in administrative and marketing costs

The high administrative costs are due to the complexity of the system's billing and insurance apparatus, where health services are paid for by a combination of employer-sponsored insurance plans, individual private insurance plans, and government-run programs. This complexity results in added administrative costs for healthcare providers, who must navigate varying coverage, billing, and eligibility requirements across different insurers.

The United States is not alone in facing these challenges. Grattan Institute health economist Stephen Duckett noted that Australia's private health insurance industry is in a "death spiral", with premiums rising faster than wages or inflation, leading to increasing dissatisfaction among Australians, especially young and healthy people.

The issue of high administrative costs is not unique to the healthcare industry. Any industry with complex billing and insurance requirements, such as car insurance, can also incur significant administrative overhead. However, in the context of private health insurance, these costs have a direct impact on the affordability and accessibility of healthcare for individuals and society as a whole.

Private insurance is unfair to many groups in society

Private insurance is unfair because it is based on risk selection and classification. Insurers reject applicants who do not represent an attractive risk and refuse them affordable coverage. This means that certain groups are deprived of adequate insurance coverage.

In addition, private insurance contributes to healthcare inflation, wastes billions in administrative and marketing costs, and has far too much political and economic power.

In Australia, an "unhappy mix" of public and private healthcare has led to a system "riddled with inconsistencies and perverse incentives". For example, young, healthy people are dropping their coverage, which means that the risk pool is getting worse.

Private insurance can also lead to "queue jumping", where people with private insurance are able to access care in public hospitals based on their insurance status rather than patient need.

Private insurance has too much political and economic power

Private insurance has long been a central institution of capital accumulation within a country's financial sector. It has accompanied capitalist activities since the rise of capitalism, with insurance assets being an important driver of the concentration of patient capital available for investments in industry, housing, infrastructure, and government debt.

In the United States, private health insurance has contributed to healthcare inflation and wasted billions in administrative and marketing costs. It has also been unfair to many societal groups and has had far too much political and economic power.

In 2019, nearly 70% of Medicaid beneficiaries received their health insurance coverage through a private, managed care organization (MCO). This growth in Medicaid managed care enrollment represents the delegation of significant power by federal and state governments over a critical social program to private actors and market forces. Medicare, too, experienced a similar pattern of transformation. Together, in 2019, Medicaid and Medicare paid more than half a trillion dollars to private insurance companies to provide public health insurance to 75 million people.

Private insurance companies have been able to constrain health policy reform through their threats to disrupt the delivery of public policies and social benefits to millions of people across the United States. They have also been able to limit their customer pool by charging high premiums, which allows them to reimburse healthcare providers at a higher rate than the government. This means that doctors may privilege patients with private coverage over those with government coverage.

In some countries, such as Canada, private insurance cannot be used for procedures that are available via the public healthcare system. For example, before 2005, the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibited private medical insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec.

Frequently asked questions