Folks should consider that, in practical reality, the alternative to unsatisfactory [health] insurance is most likely none at all. Insurance execs want to help people. But they can't solve every problem under the sun.
You're on something, Dude. Insurance execs want to make money for the company, to increase shareholder value. That is the prime directive, and everything else has lower priority. And this applies to most publicly traded companies, not just insurance companies.
S*%t Happens. And they do that by helping people pay for medical services they wouldn't otherwise be able to pay for. Clearly you don't work in the insurance business.
Idiot, the biz-model is defined by their payout (ICR) ratio. Stick to your knitting which is intro to Python.
Going full retard, watch mission impossible with the lifelike face mask. Imagine stalking and imitating someone to use as a decoy and would you buy a $300 backpack just to throw it away (mission impossible music playing). The shooter was calm, coordinated and not surprised.
Then just sort by that column and rake in the cash (hint: it won't work). I would say that reflects more on the person making the judgement. If you wake up every morning hoping to do nothing but make fiat, your priorities are out of wack and you'll likely fail.
You did. Yeah, tossed the backpack? Nah. He was staying at an HI hostel. Cheapest room in ten blocks. Ran a suppressor w/o a booster thereby turning a semi-auto into a single shot. Please teach us more.
An insurance company will be more profitable if it pays out less in claims. The company makes more money by denying claims that they know are legit. It's baked into the business model. This has been demonstrated in dozens of lawsuits. This was not so 50 years ago. I'm not saying it never happened back then, but it was not the major systemic problem that it is today.