I look forward to investing in the insurance company you found based on "race to the bottom" principles. Perhaps you'll crack the code and do nothing but collect premiums?
Certainly one reason the insurance companies might want to keep you alive (in addition to the recurring revenue).
The business model is you maximize the premiums you collect and do everything possible to minimize the claims that you pay. If you don't understand this, I can't help you. That business model is not inherently flawed, or illegal, or unethical. But it can become illegal when the insurance company intentionally denies claims that they know are valid. And they have an incentive for doing this. If they pay out less in claims, the company makes more money. Here's a quick snippet from a Fortune article that was posted earlier in this thread: UnitedHealthcare, which insures more than 29 million Americans, and its parent company UnitedHealth Group, are no strangers to scrutiny. A ProPublica investigation published last month found UnitedHealthcare effectively culled or limited some therapy expenses using an algorithm, jeopardizing mental health coverage for many Americans. California, Massachusetts, and New York deemed the practice illegal. A Senate majority staff report released in October revealed that numerous insurers failed to cover the cost of care for older people who fell or had strokes. UnitedHealthcare in particular denied coverage for post-acute care, or services and support needed after a hospitalization. In 2019, the insurance provider’s initial denial rate for post-acute care prior authorization requests was 8.7%; by 2022, it had increased to 22.7%. The recent reports add fuel to the fire of UnitedHealth’s reputation for coverage denial, which forces its customers to pay for more of their medical expenses out of pocket. According to personal finance platform ValuePenguin, UnitedHealthcare denies 32% of claims compared to the industry average of 16%. And here's the link: https://fortune.com/2024/12/05/unit...ompson-lawsuits-social-media-reaction-motive/ There is an inherent conflict of interest between an insurance company and a policyholder. The conflict is manageable. Similar conflicts occur in other business relationships. When attorney represents you in a lawsuit, they can charge more fees by dragging out the case, filing more motions, and delaying the progress of the case. They can make more money by doing things that are not in the best interest of their client. But there are ways to prevent this type of conflict from causing great harm. That's not happening in the health insurance industry. Read the quote above in blue from the Forbes article. Do you believe that the conclusions reached by the US Senate, and by the regulatory or legislative bodies in California, Massachussets and New York are all bullshit?
If the gov wants to open an insurance business that plays by the same rules as everyone else, they should go ahead and do that. But... why shut down private insurance? The reason is if the gov opens an insurance business it will not play by the same rules and the outcomes will be different. Ask people in Canada and England how happy they are w/ their gov insurance.
Do you consider Medicare to be a government insurance program? Or do you have an interpretation of the facts that leads to the conclusion that Medicare is something else? Note that I am referring to the original Medicare program. I am not referring to Medicare Advantage plans, or to Medicare Supplement plans. I am also not referring to Medicaid. If you don't know the difference between these programs, that's okay. Many people are clueless about Medicare until they reach age 65 and need to enroll, or until they have to help their parents navigate the system. But if you don't know the difference between these programs, you won't be able to answer my question.
Regarding the UK NHS. Popularity is 25%, but >80% would not trade it for a end user pay/private insurer system.
sickness is god's plan. they are not unhaapy, and force to go out and murder a health plan administrator.