[cwan]

Profit is not the problem. For a site about startups/building businesses, that's a rather bizarre argument - ie this is asking how can anyone can care for their customers and their bottomline at the same time? (so is that an argument for effectively nationalizing everything?)

This assumes that the alternative maximizes efficiency - and can you honestly say that about how the US government administers Medicare? Look at education - sure it's not "for profit" if you ignore the ever increasing profits that accrue to teachers' unions.

Besides, despite all the handwringing over those profit maximizing bastards at private healthcare insurers, guess who is the largest denier of healthcare claims? http://biggovernment.com/ptuohe/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-larg...

[fnid2]

Insurance companies care for profits and customers both now, as an example, through copays for prescription drugs. Drugs that tend to ensure the health of the patient are sometimes free and sometimes $40 or more for name brand drugs that do the equivalent of a $5 copay generic. The Insurance company takes a hit on the drugs with no copay, but they tend to reduce the lifetime cost of health for the insured by keeping them healthy.

Anti-inflammatories for example. Inflammation is bad stuff, so keeping it down keeps you healthy. You often need only a prescription to get free anti-inflammatories with certain health insurance plans.

Of course that tactic will also be quite strategic in a single payer system.

EDIT (from your linked article): In short, the AMA is endorsing a plan whose closest existing example is the most frequent denier of claims. How the public option exemplifies “delivering care to patients” is unclear.

Maybe more claims should be denied. Maybe insurance companies pay for things because the patient wants it and the doctors think it is unnecessary. Or perhaps medicare pays more overall even though it denies more claims. We don't know what the ulterior motive is, and the article implies there is one.