Your examples of countries to "fly off to" are probably 2 of the least desirable to go to for any reason. That made your point basically moot.<quoted text>
For lots of folks, the cure would be worse than the disease. I don't see any folks flying off from the US to Russia or China for their medical care. And like many you obviously believe that by making health insurance companies not-for-profit, one can ignore the basic rules of economics.
So let's take one simple rule. If I'm running a not-for-profit insurance company, why would I offer health insurance when I make $0, while I make $$$$ in auto/home/life/etc. insurance. What company stays in a business that never turns a profit? How does this impact the "supply" side of the equation? Do more companies enter or leave? How exactly does making health insurance companies not-for-profit incent companies to invest in drugs, medical technology, etc?
Not-for-profit companies do not, as you say, turn a profit however, they do show Asset Gain. That Asset Gain can be used for many things...raises, bonuses, cars, baseball games, spreading the gain with the employees.
The company my wife works for is not-for-profit. Her project involves competing in a for-profit market. They do very well and given the economy, have grown every year since we have been here. Many, if not all, of the for-profit companies she competes with do not pay their employees as well and charge more for their services and generally produce a lesser quality of service.
Her incentive and motivation is not driven by having to show profits at the end of the year. The board of directors is not interested in profits.
Money and profit are the root of all greed and evil. Insurance companies have been proven in court to deny coverage to folks because it is their bottom line to make a profit. If we removed that incentive insurance companies could/maybe would stop denying coverage to folks based solely on profit loss.