site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Doctors get paid well but the administrative burden is also a large part of the discrepancy. Providers have to spend way too much time negotiating with insurance companies over payments and what will and won't be covered. There's an entire business around denying as many claims as they can get away with. Part of it is inherent in a multi payer system (Germany's public-private system has higher costs than the UK) but there are plenty of aspects to the 'managed care' system, like provider networks and utilization management, that are unique to the US.

Similarly, drug development is notoriously expensive and the costs have to be passed down to the consumer at some point - but the insurance companies are hardly innocent bystanders forced to pass them through. Pharmacy benefit managers are supposed to negotiate reasonable prices/rebates and formularies between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and insurance companies - but the three largest companies (Optum, Caremark, Express Scripts) managing 80% of all prescriptions are owned by UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, which defeats the whole 'independent negotiator' thing and just makes them rent seekers at consumer/government expense. It also makes it possible to skirt the medical loss ratio rule by shifting profits.

Insurance companies are legally obligated to pay out 80% of premiums. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where they deny claims for bullshit reasons, and this is perhaps even part of their business strategy, but the big picture is that they spend the vast majority of premiums on payment for care.

It's not clear to me what "shifting profits" has to do with this, because the regulation is about how much premium revenue is spent on healthcare rather than anything to do with profits.

Vertically integrated insurance companies can charge themselves more so it looks like patients get more bang for their buck. The PBM (owned by the health insurance company) charges the health insurance company a high price for a drug, increasing "payout" (numerator of the medical loss ratio) while simply shifting revenue internally. The same thing happens with insurance-owned clinics and pharmacies.

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2025/12/reports-show-health-insurers-skirt-medical-loss-ratio-rules/

Retail pharmaceutical spending accounts for 10% of total health spending. It's not the reason for high costs.

The same thing happens with insurance-owned clinics

What fraction of healthcare spending goes through insurance owned clinics?

As I understand it, this is part of the problem: since you're loss ratio is floored at 80%, you don't have a strong incentive to manage costs. There is actually a bit of the opposite one: the higher the costs, the higher the premiums, and the bigger is the base from which you derive profits.

That's certainly true. But that would incentivize insurance companies to pay out more claims.

Insurance companies are probably not sufficiently motivated to play hardball with providers on costs. At the same time, people are getting most of their premiums back even if they don't like how much care they get for those premiums.

People aren't getting most of their premiums back. The healthcare system is getting most of the premiums rather than the insurance system, and it's not showing up as profit, but rather being paid to support the health care bureaucracy.

ETA: And sometimes the same entity is on both sides of the transaction, as @yunyun333 points out.