Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money. The less they pay out, the less they make.

Because there is a clear legal understanding of how much profit is acceptable.

> Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money.

Ahhh. I guess you're not aware of stuff like this?

https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insura...

This is the second time on this thread you've pasted this Newsweek link as a rebuttal. I don't understand why you think it rebuts either argument.

Does this one help illustrate the problem?

https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_m...

What "problem"? You're not being clear about what you're trying to say. That a particular insurer has done bad things? Nobody was going to take the other side of that argument.

Denied claims mean less profit for the insurer. They only get to keep a percent of what they pay to hospitals. Do you have a response to that?

One of the primary jobs of insurance companies is to vet claims. If we didnt want that, you could just make a shared bank account and let doctors and hospitals bill anything they want to it. You might save 10% on overhead, but it would collapse instantly.

> Denied claims mean less profit for the insurer.

If that were true then United Healthcare wouldn't have rolled out an automated system that (reportedly) denies ~90% of people regardless of their actual need.

I'm not going to stick up for UHC, which is an obnoxious company, but do you honestly believe UHC is denying 90% of claims? Have you thought the implications of that claim through?

> Have you thought the implications of that claim through?

The CEO getting shot seems to indicate it's probably more true than less true.