“If you seem to be getting a deal paying cash it is probably about what the provider would receive from the insurance company.”
Ah... that's kinda the point. In fact, that's precisely the point of my wife's surgery. It cost us the same with or without the insurance. With insurance, it was $15K with us paying a $3K co-pay. Without the insurance, it was a cash payment of $2,900.
Alberta's Child's comment was, "One basic problem with the medical profession is that a doctor provides services that most of his patients simply can't afford."
My point is, we're already affording these services, we're already paying for them. The idea that the insurance companies are actually paying the bulk of our health care costs, and we're just making a small contribution thereto often just isn't the case.
In my wife's case, the final cost to me for the surgical facility (NOT the doctor's fee, NOT the anesthesiologist's fee, but the actual brick-and-mortar facility, the actual operating room, etc. - one of those high-priced things we worry about paying if we had no health insurance) cost me the same amount with or without the insurance. The difference is, if I didn't have to pay for the “comprehensive” health insurance I now have, I'd save the cost of the insurance. Which is low five-figures per year.
Having health insurance didn't save me any money at all from what I actually had to pay. The idea that somehow I'd be unable to afford my health care if I didn't have health insurance is mostly untrue.
sitetest
I see your point now.
If everybody could get the same deal as the insurance company, few would actually need insurance other than catastrophic coverage.