I was wondering why non-profit health insurance companies are not being looked at as possible solutions for revamping the health care insurance industry to make it more efficient. I am sure someone has thought of this and there must be reasons we are not doing it, but I thought I would ask the question anyway.

It seems non-profit insurance companies could compete with private insurance companies if they could get enough providers and enough insurees, and would probably have lower premiums, pay out better for what was needed, and would put the money in the right places because they could only use a certain amount for overhead and salaries. What is it that I am not seeing here?

Thanks for listening.

Instructor of Philosophy
Laura T

Isn’t it really plain to see that all this will do is set back their finances even more? I mean, come on, even a 10-year-old can see why this idea is stupid and hurtful to the state..

Someone fire these people, please..

I’ll delve into details a bit, although I think you probably need no instruction in such matters :)

Instead of government being directly accountable to the people, in the most successful political systems there are elites that DO hold public politicians accountable and who generally are competent enough to direct the country in the right direction.

The people in republics, by contrast, play a rather passive, but important role of holding the keys to liberty, as Machiavelli put it in ‘Discourses on Livy’. They aren’t supposed to play an active role in ruling the country (indeed, in the most successful political systems, there are ‘social elevators’ aimed at promoting people capable of doing that to the elite), but they are supposed to oppose any effort of subverting the system, thus making it stable and able to gradually evolve to accommodate to the changing realities.

Also, what exactly do you mean by “hold them accountable” that is NOT voting for someone else?