How to convince someone that health insurance companies are not the devil?

[MoProblems_MoMoney]

So, one of my friends saw Sicko and is now convinced that if I work in health insurance, I'll be working for the devil. How would you go about convincing her otherwise? Specifically, she's convinced health insurance companies are about making billions in profits and living the life of luxury by exploiting sick, dying people through denying their claims/refusing to write policies for people with pre-existing conditions.

I'm not a troll, I promise. I've tried to argue with her, but I could really use some tips from people who work with it firsthand.

[PinkFloydActuary]

Despite misinformation from our esteemed government, health insurance is a highly competitive commodity. There's no room for a company to consistently screw its customers over - there are too many places for people to move their business to. The pre-existing conditions problem is a fall-out of no requirement to carry health insurance. If people could just get insurance when they needed it, it would no longer be insurance. AHIP studies show that just 1 penny out of every $ is profit. Ask you friend to find other industries where the profit margin is that razor thin.

[MountainHawk]

Best argument is basic economical ones. If health insurers were making obscene profits, why wouldn't investors get in the game and charge slightly less (still profitable) and win a ton of market share.


Health insurance as 'not evil' is a bit tougher sell than auto and home insurers, because the auto and home insurers can get credit for 'great' claim service, because claims are rare and you remember the experience either way. If the health insurer gets 199 claims right, the insured barely even notices, but if they make a error on the 200th, it's 'my health insurer sucks!'

[Patience]

Originally Posted by MoProblems_MoMoney

So, one of my friends saw Sicko and is now convinced that if I work in health insurance, I'll be working for the devil. How would you go about convincing her otherwise? Specifically, she's convinced health insurance companies are about making billions in profits and living the life of luxury by exploiting sick, dying people through denying their claims/refusing to write policies for people with pre-existing conditions.

I'm not a troll, I promise. I've tried to argue with her, but I could really use some tips from people who work with it firsthand.

what does she do for a living? or parents, siblings, spouse. I am sure one of them works in some industry where the public perception is also wrong and she can't believe everything she reads (or sees).

Does she believe Moore does this to inform or shock.

Also, talk about profit as a %, not as an absolute amount.

[GargoyleWaiting]

because if it wasnt for health insurance companies nobody would get anything?

Except for the ridiculously rich - and they never get ill.

[MoProblems_MoMoney]

She's a senior political science major. She believes Michael Moore is legit. I've shown her sites debunking other Moore movies and she blew them off.

What about the argument that insurance companies fight regulation? Do they lobby against mandating coverage for everyone? Why would they need to do that - if the rules changed for everyone, I would think premiums would just rise to cover the "bad risks" that were previously excluded, and the insurance company's bottom line would be the same.

[Drewby]

Health insurance is not evil - list off all the people you know who have had a majority of bills covered after a bad accident or serious and unforeseen illness...

"Dollar-trading" is closer to evil than actual insurance...and sadly much of what we see in the marketplace today is dollar-trading...in that scenario the company tries to grab as much of the money it can off the conveyor belt as it goes by, and that can look pretty ugly...

[JMO]

Originally Posted by MoProblems_MoMoney

She's a senior political science major. She believes Michael Moore is legit. I've shown her sites debunking other Moore movies and she blew them off.

As I mentioned elsewhere, and this proves it: Calling something a science doesn't make it a science.

What about the argument that insurance companies fight regulation? Do they lobby against mandating coverage for everyone? Why would they need to do that - if the rules changed for everyone, I would think premiums would just rise to cover the "bad risks" that were previously excluded, and the insurance company's bottom line would be the same.

duh. The industry has actually been in favor of mandating coverage for all.

I think your best bet is to realize that this person is determined to remain clueless on the subject. Decide whether you still want to associate with her in spite of her mental quirk, or whether it is time to say goodbye and good luck.

(Free advice, and worth every penny. )

[tommie frazier]

as was mentioned above, we have way more interactions with a health insurer than we do auo or home. so more chances for us to be disappointed and blame them. the companies are rooting for the policyholders: no car accidents, no illness, and no dying. (note: the health insurer is ok w dying among the v sick, hopefully before medical care is provided. same with WC companies.)

could you ask people how happy they'd be to go without insurance coverage then? why bother with these evil companies?

[Patience]

Originally Posted by MoProblems_MoMoney

She's a senior political science major. She believes Michael Moore is legit. .

Just a scary combination of sentences

Originally Posted by MoProblems_MoMoney

What about the argument that insurance companies fight regulation? .

Some regulation is good, some is not good. Like any industry if we feel we would be overly regulated we fight against it. This is especially true on anything Non-can or Guaranteed renewable where we price it based on assumptions and then the whole games is changed. In another thread it was shown Health Insurance makes around a 5% profit, it is not excessive and minor changes can put us into a loss.

Originally Posted by MoProblems_MoMoney

Do they lobby against mandating coverage for everyone? Why would they need to do that - if the rules changed for everyone, I would think premiums would just rise to cover the "bad risks" that were previously excluded, and the insurance company's bottom line would be the same.

ONLY IF coverage is mandated. Otherwise people would just wait until they are sick to get insurance. And yes rates would go up, but in whose best interest is that. I believe everyone should be entitled to some form of coverage, but if people can pick and choose when they enter the system we couldn't charge enough.

In some states they are mandating coverage for ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) - it is long term and very expensive. If those people go into the general population pool your premiums could triple. There is no reasonable rate you could charge because you would basically be charging them there own medical costs plus expenses.

You tell me how to handle that?