WHY UNIVERSAL CARE IS BETTER THAN PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE

The Core Conflict: Profit vs. Patient Care in Healthcare Systems

PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN OFFERING TREATMENT TO PATIENTS THAN GOVERNMENT OPERATED UNIVERSAL PLANS! Studies suggest private insurance can be more restrictive in offering treatment compared to government universal insurance. For example, a study by the Fraser Institute ( A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK)highlights that private insurance markets can lead to inequities where wealthier individuals obtain better healthcare than others.

Healthcare systems face a fundamental tension between serving patients and generating profits. This tension is most clearly seen when comparing private insurance-based healthcare with universal public healthcare systems.

In private insurance-based systems, insurance companies are structured as profit-seeking enterprises with a primary duty to their shareholders. Their directors and executives must balance two competing interests: providing patient healthcare coverage and generating returns for investors. This creates an inherent conflict, as every dollar spent on patient care is a dollar that cannot be returned as profit. The result is a system that naturally incentivizes reducing coverage, denying claims, and increasing premiums whenever possible to maximize shareholder value.

In contrast, universal public healthcare systems (often called Medicare or National Health Services in various countries) operate under a fundamentally different model. These systems are directly accountable to the public through democratic processes. When citizens are dissatisfied with how the healthcare system is managed, they can vote for different political leaders to implement changes. This creates a direct line of accountability between healthcare administration and patient outcomes.

The accountability structures in these two systems produce markedly different results. In private systems, insurance companies may introduce complex paperwork, lengthy approval processes, and coverage exclusions - all mechanisms that can help reduce costs and increase profits but can delay or deny necessary care. Their success is measured primarily through financial metrics rather than health outcomes.

While not without challenges, public healthcare systems are measured by different metrics: patient health outcomes, accessibility of care, and public satisfaction. When these systems fall short, political pressure can drive systemic improvements. Without a profit motive, all resources can be directed toward patient care rather than shareholder returns.

This fundamental difference explains why many countries with universal public healthcare systems achieve better overall health outcomes while spending less per capita than systems dominated by private insurance. The money saved by eliminating profit-taking and reducing administrative complexity can be redirected to actual healthcare delivery.

Furthermore, universal systems typically achieve better preventive care outcomes because they don't face the same short-term profit pressures. Private insurers may be reluctant to invest in preventive care, which could take years to show financial returns, especially when patients might switch to different insurance companies. Public systems can take a longer view, investing in prevention that improves public health and reduces costs over time.

The choice between private and public healthcare systems is not merely about government versus private control - it's about aligning incentives with desired outcomes. When the goal is maximizing population health and ensuring universal access to care, a democratically accountable public system has structural advantages over one driven by profit motives.

The success of healthcare systems ultimately depends on whether their fundamental purpose - serving patient needs - aligns with their operational incentives. In this light, universal public healthcare offers a more coherent approach to achieving better health outcomes for all citizens.

Would you like me to expand on any particular aspect of this comparison, such as specific examples of how these different incentive structures affect patient care?