Like many market failures, this market appears to disenfranchise the customer. As I understand things, one is largely at the mercy of one's employer - and whatever choice they have made.
Now, if individual customers could choose widely between insurance companies independently of employment, and anti-monopoly laws ensured there was a competitive market free of collusion, we might see some innovation and accountability. I understand that in theory one can choose, but that it is prohibitively expensive so de facto, such cover has become a perk of employment.
Corporations will always tend towards monopoly, removing customer choice and use political power to deflect change.
And then one factors in the very high cost of modern healthcare, so the majority of people require a subsidy to access it. This may be from employers "bulk buying" and building some of that cost into remuneration packages, or a direct government subsidy from taxation. The former leads to the inequality of a dysfunctional market - the latter argues for health being a public service entirely.
Bookmarks