Seeing as how that is not politically possibly, middlemen with sub 5% profit margins was the compromise. Obviously not the best situation, but still better than before.
Is there any evidence that these companies are concluding to increase revenue by making the system less efficient?
Low profit margins plus multitude of competitors generally means there is not much juice left to squeeze.
>Seeing as how that is not politically possibly
Basically every other liberal democracy has taxpayer funded healthcare, and even many US states have successful programs. It's extraordinarily silly to call that impossible, or to call what we have now a "compromise" rather than a clear case of corporate welfare being put before the welfare of the citizens.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art...
Seeing as how Republicans have zero interest in taxpayer funded healthcare, and they have held enough Senate seats to stymie any Democrat led effort for the past 20 years and probably next 20, I do not see why it is “silly” to call it politically impossible.
Anyone who works in healthcare and looks at billing can tell you this is not actually the case, prices are not based on any reasonable metric and are rarely actually paid by insurers anyway.
>The companies that sell the healthcare have profit margins in the sub 5% range.
Point of contention here, these companies aren't selling healthcare, they're reselling it. Which is a service which should ideally not have any profit margins, and would be best suited for a large, collective entity that everyone paid into according to their financial ability, as opposed to smaller social-class exclusive pools.