Health insurance in the United States has undergone a profound transformation. What began as a safeguard against catastrophic medical expenses has become a catch-all system expected to cover nearly every healthcare expense imaginable. This shift—driven by employer incentives, government intervention, and consumer demands—has led to skyrocketing costs, inefficiencies, and a negative feedback loop that continues to inflate private insurance premiums. A closer look at this evolution reveals the underlying issues and a pathway toward a more sustainable solution.
The Affordable Beginnings
In the early 20th century, healthcare was a straightforward transaction. Doctor visits and hospital stays were typically paid out-of-pocket, and costs were manageable for the average person. Health insurance, introduced in the 1920s, was designed as a financial safety net for rare and catastrophic medical events. Plans like those offered by Baylor University (later Blue Cross) provided coverage for hospital stays, pooling risk among participants. Preventative care and routine expenses were still paid out-of-pocket, which kept healthcare costs in check.
This balance shifted as the government and employers became more involved. During World War II, wage controls limited how much employers could pay workers, leading them to offer health insurance as a benefit. In 1943, the IRS made employer-sponsored health insurance tax-deductible, cementing its role in the American workplace. Over time, these plans grew to include outpatient care, prescriptions, and preventative services—essentially transforming health insurance into a healthcare payment system.
Government’s Role in Ballooning Costs
The creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 was a pivotal moment in healthcare’s evolution—and its rising costs. These programs expanded access to millions of seniors and low-income individuals but also introduced a structural imbalance. State and federal governments began setting reimbursement limits for providers treating Medicare and Medicaid patients, often paying less than the actual cost of care. To make up for these shortfalls, providers shifted the financial burden onto private insurers by charging them higher rates—a practice that persists to this day.
This cost-shifting acts as a hidden tax on private insurance. As government reimbursement rates fail to keep pace with rising medical costs, providers increasingly rely on private insurance to subsidize their losses. Over time, this dynamic has driven up premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for privately insured individuals, distorting the market and creating a negative feedback loop that reinforces these inefficiencies.
The ACA and the Feedback Loop Intensifies
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 further exacerbated this feedback loop. While the ACA expanded coverage and introduced important protections, such as banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions, it also deepened cost imbalances:
- Increased Medicaid Enrollment: The ACA’s Medicaid expansion significantly increased the number of people covered by the program. However, Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates left providers with even larger gaps to fill, prompting further cost-shifting to private insurance.
- Comprehensive Coverage Mandates: The ACA required all private insurance plans to include a wide array of “essential health benefits” and prohibited annual and lifetime coverage limits. While these measures improved access, they also increased the baseline cost of private insurance. Providers used this expanded coverage as an opportunity to negotiate higher rates with private insurers, driving premiums higher.
- Market Consolidation: The ACA incentivized healthcare providers to consolidate, aiming to improve care coordination and reduce costs. Instead, consolidation often led to monopolistic practices, where large hospital systems wielded market power to extract higher payments from insurers. This dynamic reinforced the cost-shifting loop.
- Shifting from Uncompensated to Under-Compensated Care: While the ACA reduced uncompensated care by expanding insurance coverage, much of this care was replaced with under-compensated care through Medicaid, leaving providers with similar financial strains.
The net effect of these changes was an intensified reliance on private insurance to subsidize the healthcare system. Premiums rose, deductibles increased, and the affordability problem deepened for millions of Americans.
The Individual’s Role and the System’s Flaws
Another critical flaw in the system is the disconnect between individual behavior and healthcare costs. While naturally occurring and pre-existing conditions are beyond individual control, lifestyle choices—such as smoking, poor diet, and inactivity—are major drivers of healthcare expenses. Yet, the system fails to incentivize healthier behaviors, instead spreading costs across all policyholders.
Employers, acting as intermediaries, further complicate the system. Employees often have little say in their coverage, which is tied to their job, and even less transparency into costs. This setup obscures the true price of healthcare, limiting consumer choice and fostering inefficiencies.
A New Model: Empowering Individuals and Restoring Affordability
To break the feedback loop and restore balance, a new model is needed—one that emphasizes individual choice, transparency, and sustainability. Here’s how it could work:
- Health Savings Accounts (HSAs):
- Employers would contribute tax-free funds directly to employee-owned HSAs instead of procuring insurance plans. These contributions would be equivalent to what employers currently pay for insurance, ensuring no new costs or loss of benefits.
- By eliminating the need for employers to negotiate with insurers or manage health plans, businesses could reduce administrative overhead and streamline operations.
- HSA funds would be portable, following individuals from job to job, and would roll over year to year, allowing balances to accumulate over time.
- National Deregulation of Insurance Markets:
- Eliminating state-by-state restrictions would create a nationwide marketplace where consumers could access a broader range of plans. Increased competition would drive down costs and improve quality, while transparency requirements would empower consumers.
- Separate Funding for Chronic and Catastrophic Care:
- Chronic and pre-existing conditions could be covered by a government-managed catastrophic care program, much like the existing Medicare and Medicaid systems. This would ensure support for those who need it most while allowing private insurers to focus on risk-based coverage.
Benefits for the Self-Employed
Self-employed individuals would benefit immensely from this model. Unlike traditional employees who rely on employer-sponsored plans, self-employed people must navigate expensive individual insurance markets with limited options. A deregulated, nationwide marketplace would provide self-employed workers access to more affordable plans tailored to their needs. Lower premiums, combined with the ability to use tax-free HSA funds for healthcare expenses, would offer much-needed financial relief. By reducing the administrative burden of finding and maintaining coverage, this system would empower self-employed individuals to focus on their businesses while enjoying the same cost advantages as employees in large corporations.
The Long-Term Potential: Starting Early
This model would have a profound impact, particularly for younger workers. Imagine a teenager entering the workforce at age 15 or 16. With minimal healthcare expenses and steady HSA contributions, they could accumulate significant savings before facing their first major medical expenses, typically in their 30s or 40s.
For example, if a young worker receives an annual HSA contribution of $2,000 and invests unused funds with a modest 5% annual return, their account could grow to over $40,000 by age 30 and over $80,000 by age 40. These funds would provide a substantial cushion for higher insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, or even elective procedures, reducing financial strain during critical life stages.
Closing the Loop: Unused Funds and Redistribution
Unused HSA funds at the end of an individual’s life could roll back into the healthcare payment system, directly supporting catastrophic care funding. This ensures that every dollar is reinvested into sustaining the core system, addressing the needs of individuals with chronic or severe medical conditions.
Conclusion
The evolution of health insurance into a healthcare payment system has been driven by government intervention, employer incentives, and shifting consumer expectations. While these changes increased access, they also created inefficiencies and a negative feedback loop that continues to inflate costs.
By transitioning to a model based on portable HSAs, deregulated insurance markets, and transparent pricing, we can break the cycle of rising costs and declining responsiveness. This approach empowers individuals to take control of their healthcare while maintaining a safety net for those who need it most. By starting early, embracing competition, and focusing on sustainability, we can create a healthcare system that is fair, efficient, and truly affordable.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #healthcare #insurance #innovation
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply