We had someone get sick on a trip to Iceland. They walked into the emergency room, talked with a doctor a few minutes later, and got some antibiotics. They were very apologetic because the U.S. wasn’t part of the E.U. reciprocity agreement and they would have to charge them for the costs and the total came to — cue Americans raised on medical news stories bracing in expectation – less than what their major university insurance copay would have been for the visit + prescription.

   a few minutes later, and got some antibiotics

... which is improper care. They could not properly diagnose a bacterial cause that quickly -- they gave that patient antibiotics to make them go away. Indiscriminate use of antibiotics has lead to resistant strains worldwide.

Antibiotic misuse is a problem but in this case you are completely wrong, and you really should think twice before making accusations of professional misconduct when you have no idea of the facts.

> Insurance is socialism for profit and they are raking it in.

Insurance exists in Germany also and it makes some costs be lower, or even 0. Some medication will always have the same price regardless of your insurance status. But for example going to the hospital almost anywhere in Europe will never result in a tens of thousands or Euros bill for the patient.

This isn't a problem with the insurance concept, it's with what a government does with it.

Insurance is cost sharing or a direct socialist aspect in that the cost of the covered item is shared by society as a whole

so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In the US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit. It really is that simple.

How does this definition fit with having multiple private entities offering the same service and competing in the same market? It doesn't have to be state controlled and forced onto everybody. Is a small subset of the community considered "community as a whole"? How about when multiple independent subsets pay different prices for different services?

If you are getting a discount from you employer for your own products and services (cheaper Windows license as a MS employee) does this imply a socialist setup?

Everyone in society is paying increased healthcare costs which can be traced directly to insurance overhead.

Check out the doctors who take cash only

https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...

The whole society pays for everything that is shared. Like roads. Or White House. Expensive cars and plane tickets subsidize cheap ones.

The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter.

Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?

In this instance the companies aren’t competing, they’re price aligning. As the article points out, a competitor launched their product at exactly the same price. That’s not competition, it’s price fixing.

The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market.

The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.

This seems to be less of a problem in other parts of the world. Which is why I said it's a problem with the implementation, not the concept of the system.

Where I live different insurance providers offer different conditions. So depending on your needs and situation you would definitely find one offer far better than another. While there may be a "fixing" component hidden somewhere the system works very well and the result is both lower bills or even none for the patients, and lower bills for the insurance company. You don't see situations where the insurance would pay exorbitant amounts to the hospital because somehow applying a band-aid ended up costing hundreds [0]. Just because a system has a social component of responsibility doesn't make it socialist. It might just make it more useful and efficient.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fe...

Insurance isn't owned, produced, or exchanged by the community as a whole. It's owned, produced, and exchanged by single commercial entities based on the power of statistics. So, not socialism at all.

In the US medical insurance additionally has an unchecked and largely unregulated profit layer.

It really is that simple.

you mean you arent paying for it ? ...society as a whole isnt ?

Check the healthcare costs once more

Definition:

- [In socialism]: the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Your claim:

- US insurance has a profit layer making it socialism for profit.

Question:

Which part of medical insurance in the US is produced, distributed, and exchanged by society as a whole?

The largest medical insurer in the US is a commercial entity UnitedHealth Group with a membership of 49.5 million people. It's 20% of the adults in the US, but still can hardly be called "society as a whole". And yes, these 20% have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged.

Other insurers are, similarly, commercial entities, smaller in size, and people have no say in how the insurance is produced, distributed, and exchanged.

---

Also:

- is car insurance socialism?

- is accident insurance socialism?

- are public roads, public schools, police, firefighting, army, coast guard socialism?

Per your own quote it isn't socialism: The private insurers are getting the profit, not "the community as a whole".

correct..the for profit layer is fleecing the entire society.

Socialism for profit

Buy 10 it will pay for your trip.

Not sure I want to get pulled out of customs for smuggling

I don't want to give any tips here lol.

Socialism for profit is called capitalism.

It's just called socialism.