That Healthcare Bill Thing

[Calin Leafshade]

So it would seem that that old Irish fellow Mr O'Bama has passed this healthcare bill.

As a British person with 100% universal healthcare the US system always baffles me a little but one thing I was curious about was the average american's opinion.

Most news outlets seem to suggest that acceptance of the bill is about 50-50*.
(EDIT Actually the polls seem to be more like 40-50)*
Fox news puts that figure at more like 25-75
but polls also suggest that most Americans (90%) dont understand the bill. So the polls are relatively useless in understanding their actually beliefs on the matter and not just their party's opinion.

So whats your opinion, Americans? are you pro or against?

Having seen universal healthcare work pretty well in the UK for like 60 years and throughout Europe I pretty strongly support universal healthcare as a moral issue but it seems like all the focus in the American media is about the economic issue. They say it's bad from an economic perspective and thus it shouldn't be adopted. I may be wrong there but thats how it seems to me from this side of the pond.

My actual opinion of the healthcare bill from what I understand is that its really a case of wounding the beast.

You've put all these restrictions on the insurance companies which limits the way they operate and will probably affect their long term profits but you didn't limit what they can do with the premiums. As far as I can tell they are free to just hike up the cost of cover as much as they like. There was a provision in the bill to stop that but they were forced to take it out to get it passed.

So although the bill contains a great deal of very positive things I feel that this omission to the bill may be its undoing

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Not to mention that it doesn't go fully into play until 2014. At which point Obama's term will be up, so it's quite likely the republicans will try to demolish it when they get into office. Which unfortunately seems rather likely to me, since Obama has only been making subtle changes to the country and therefor nobody notices. There's an overwhelming amount of people who seem to think that Obama hasn't actually done anything, despite the fact that's he's actually done a lot. Just not a lot that's in the public light. So unfortunately it seems to me that the next president being Republican is very likely. And the death of this bill will follow shortly after.

[Calin Leafshade]

Hmm the problem with entitlements is that they are usually pretty permanent, whether they are good for the country or not.

Once you give a population some form of entitlement that they pay for through tax they are unlikely to be able to take those away again without a riot. Some say this is why the Conservative party in Britain don't campaign against the NHS.. It would be suicide. Not because Britain *likes* the NHS but because the are *dependent* on the NHS.. Although I think thats bollocks myself.

[Questionable]

From what I understand the core bill has passed but they are still litigating details of the bill; Issuing amendments and corrections, etc.

I've really only heard two legitimate arguments AGAINST some form of universal health care. The first being that requiring American citizens to participate in a marketplace is unconstitutional. It would be like forcing everyone to buy Ice Cream. It's federally mandated YOU HAVE TO DO IT! You don't have to eat it, it doesn't matter if you're lactose intolerant, you HAVE to buy Ice Cream.

The second argument that I've heard is that regulating and restricting how insurance companies operate we will not only slowly destroy modern Health-care and the insurance companies but we undermine the capitalistic foundation of America and permanently damage the confidence and trust of the private sector.

The other arguments I've heard aren't worth noting, as they are mostly the enraged tears of ill-informed loud mouths, however, those arguments are valid.

Personally, I am for some form of Universal Health-care, however, I'm not really a fan of the current bill. It seems odd to me that the democratic party was able to bypass debate and certify the bill "automatically" yet the bill that they passed was the weakest, most diluted, pussy-footed attempt we've seen yet. Ultimately it will reign in some of the exorbitant waste and inefficiencies in the health-care sector and it will insure millions of more individuals. Ideally it will raise the standard level of care off offered. It doesn't go FAR ENOUGH, however, in regulating inhumane practices, wasteful spending, inefficiencies, nor does it guarantee coverage for all US Citizens, let alone any person present in the country for any reasons.

I wish I could say that it's a solid step in the correct direction but I don't think the foot has landed yet. With mid-term election coming soon it's also a very real possibility that the bill could be repealed. At the end of the day I can't give an honest answer about my opinion yet, due to the fact that the dust is still settling. It will take a few weeks and maybe even months before the bill is finalized and we have a clear picture of how it will change the health-care/insurance landscape.

In my perfect America, we would have an "opt-in" tax for individuals below a certain monthly/annual income. People that opt-in would be eligible for a government overseen or directly operated health-care provider at either no or an extremely low cost. People above the income bracket would be required to pay the tax regardless of if they choose to participate or not in the actual health-care program. Private insurance would always be an option and would ultimately evolve to offer A.) The Highest level of care and B.) The Lowest level of care. Health-care would be mandatory for all Citizens, either public or private. Health-care would also be extended to all non-citizens persons legally present in the U.S.   A possible simplification would be to require ALL citizens to pay a health-care tax and those wanting Health-care beyond what the public system offered could either be re-reimbursed or the government would distribute their health-care funds to the insurance provider of their choice and the citizen could pay the difference. Additionally there would be a government agency similar to the USDA/Health Inspectors/FDA/EPA in order to certify that health-care providers adhered to certain standards. Doctors would be compensated on a salary basis with incentives offered for exceeding quality standards and performing extracurricular care such as home-visitations, over-hours emergency care, etc. Cosmetic surgeries would be outside the scope of public health care, but would be taxed as an additional source of revenue for the public system.

Most likely, none of this will happen withing the next ten years, or so, but that's a pretty vague vision of US Healthcare as I see it.

[Radiant]

It strikes me that a small group of people is making a lot of money with the previous system of health care, and would make substantially less with the new system; and that since these people have a lot of money, they can use it to sway the ignorant population with propaganda.

[Snarky]

The US currently has the most dysfunctional health system in the developed world (one of the: most expensive, most money wasted, worst population health), and the cost has been going up exponentially for the last forty years at least. It is obviously unsustainable in its current form. Reform is not a choice, it's a necessity.

The bill that got passed is far from perfect. Many better ideas were proposed, but it turned out to be impossible to pass any of them. The Republicans have showed in the clearest way possible that they were not interested in negotiating realistically (with the Democrats controlling the House, Senate and White House, negotiating realistically means realizing that you won't get most of what you want) for the good of the country. That meant cutting out any daring ideas, stuffing it with pork and special interest gi'mmes, and playing ugly political hardball to get it passed.

Is it better than nothing? From what I've heard, yes. The reforms themselves are modest and are not going to solve America's healthcare crisis, but they offer a framework for further reform. Five years from now, with these new systems in place, it's going to be easier to make substantive change that will make an impact. Most importantly, if this effort had failed too, even with the majorities enjoyed by Democrats in Congress, after Hillarycare fell through in the 1990s, no politician would ever dare to try to tackle the problem ever again, and the USA would be utterly fucked.

Good on Obama and Pelosi for showing some backbone and actually standing up for some of what they believe in and got elected to do.

[monkey0506]

Quite literally every single person I have talked to about this healthcare plan is 100% against it. I don't have all the facts but the idea that anyone who is employed and offered healthcare will be forced to purchase it, regardless of whether they are financially capable of affording it or whether they want the plans their employer offers.

Prior to the bill employed Amerikaans who were offered healthcare through their employer had the option to reject it. Whether they couldn't afford it, they didn't need it, they had a different healthcare plan, or otherwise, the point is it was optional.

With this new bill we will no longer have the choice as to whether or not we want to purchase it. This will likely not improve the average citizen's health. Myself, for example, have rarely ever had a cause to seek medical attention of any kind. This bill is not going to change that. When it has been offered, I have previously taken offered insurance, but it was an option. If I wanted, I could terminate the "benefits". Now, I no longer will have the option (once it goes into law).

As far as I understand it the bill does not actually impose healthcare on those who are unemployed or whose employer does not offer healthcare benefits.

The fact alone that my basic liberty of being able to choose whether or not to accept the offered healthcare is enough that I know I am extremely dissatisfied with the bill. I'm not saying I agree with the entire state of affairs of the present medical system, but forcing the public to purchase healthcare they may not want or even utilize is not going to instantaneously solve any problems.

That's just my take on it though I suppose.

[SSH]

Prior to the bill employed Amerikaans who were offered healthcare through their employer had the option to reject it. Whether they couldn't afford it, they didn't need it, they had a different healthcare plan, or otherwise, the point is it was optional.

But the trouble with "options" is that one can be pressured into not taking the best one for yourself in all sorts of ways. Before the smoking ban in bars in the UK, it was of course optional for any bar to ban smoking of its own initiative. But hardly any did because some things are financial suicide unless everyone else does it too (or you're catering for a niche).

And people opting out of insurance means that a magical someone has to pick up the bill when sudenyl the person with no previous health problems gets sick. Sometimes this will mean state aid, sometimes this will be bankruptcy... all of these cost "society" money, too. No man is an island.

In the UK, we are forced to  pay National Insurance (its effectly a tax) for the NHS. In my company they offer a subsidized private insurance scheme too, which "tops up" my NHS cover and effectively lets me queue jump. I never signed up for these queue-jump schemes, personally, until I had kids.

Interestingly, the NHS covers some IVF and also abortions. Now that's a can of worms...

[Questionable]

Prior to the bill employed Amerikaans who were offered healthcare through their employer had the option to reject it. Whether they couldn't afford it, they didn't need it, they had a different healthcare plan, or otherwise, the point is it was optional.

With this new bill we will no longer have the choice as to whether or not we want to purchase it. This will likely not improve the average citizen's health. Myself, for example, have rarely ever had a cause to seek medical attention of any kind. This bill is not going to change that. When it has been offered, I have previously taken offered insurance, but it was an option. If I wanted, I could terminate the "benefits". Now, I no longer will have the option (once it goes into law).

As I mentioned earlier this is one of the few legitimate arguments against, however, there is something that needs to be clarified. You are not required to buy into your employers healthcare policy, you are simply required to have healthcare.  Many employers offer healthcare for their employees at a discounted basis or at a fully compensated basis. For instance, where my girlfriend works her company pays for 85% of her healthcare cost and the rest is voluntarily taken from her paycheck. At my previous employer, T-Mobile, I didn't pay a cent for healthcare. Both of us would be considered "legally covered," she would be paying a rate significantly lower than if she had healthcare on her own and I have a $1,100/mo Policy for free! However, the guy that works at the family owned gas (petrol) station probably isn't getting his healthcare covered and Ma & Pa Miller probably don't offer an employer partnership. He would still be required to HAVE healthcare, however. Where he gets it from and how much it costs are still up in the air at this point; IF his employer did offer coverage he could choose to take it or he could seek it on his own. So you're not required to buy from your employer, but if your employer offers healthcare for free or cheaper than normal it would make sense to enlist through them.

There is talk of limiting how much insurance companies can charge based on income and there are talks about having insurance companies setup various tiers of minimum legal coverage up-to premium coverage in order to distribute cost and coverage more effectively. These are tentative, currently, and the logistics of how everything will work has not yet been finalized.

Additionally, currently your employment status (currently) has no effect on whether or not you are required to have some form of healthcare coverage. You are required to have automobile insurance on any cars you own (in most states,) regardless of if you are employed, unemployed, homeless, a teenager, etc. 

I agree that this is a valid argument, however it's an argument that is simple to resolve. If you are going to force everyone to have healthcare you HAVE to offer something that is either low-cost or zero-cost in some way. It's apparent to everyone in the White House that without offering some type of option that low-income individuals can afford, mandating healthcare is only going to have an effect on the middle and upper classes and therefore, be worthless in essence. It would appear as if the next logical step then would be to enact either a government overseen or government run option for these people.  This is the only way to overcome this argument, that or eliminate the coverage mandate, which after all of this work probably is not going to happen.  It seems likely then, that this is a tactic that is being used to force opposition to concede that the only constitutional and effective way to offer the reforms as they exist are to offer a public option or a government regulated option.

State law and federal law are two different beasts and a war has been waged since the inception of the country over which has great control over the rights of the American people. Historically it has been upheld that federal law takes precedent, however there are many cases in which powerful states disregard federal law or supersede it. Auto-makers build cars to meet California environmental and safety standards which exceeds the federals requirement, because California is one of the largest markets. Additional, many states have legalized Marijuana to licensed users, however the federal government still recognizes marijuana as an illegal substance and routine closes down shops/clinics and arrests licensed users. In Hawaii, there is "Universal Healthcare" in a system that is setup similar to NHS. In Wisconsin, the state does not require Healthcare but imposes a small tax on all individuals and offers an extremely low-cost healthcare option provided by the State and funded by tax money and the low cost of being enrolled. Some states are saying that if they pass a law stating that their citizens cannot be mandated to purchase healthcare it over-rules any federal mandates. This is unlikely, however it is unclear how states that DO offer Universal Healthcare or State-run Healthcare (like Hawaii and Wisconsin) will be effected. Similarly unclear is how this will effect people in US Commonwealths who typically have dual citizenship (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Isles, etc.)

AT the end of the day all that we know is that SOMETHING is going to be changed. What and how much is not yet certain.

[Radiant]

The long and short of it is this:

The insurance companies have as their primary aim making money. It is in their best interest to give you as little health care as possible for the highest price you will accept.

The government has as their primary aim the welfare of the citizens (or at least in theory). It is in their best interest to give you as much health care as possible for the lowest price they can manage.

Note the obvious conflict of interest here. Traditionally, USA uses the former, and most of Europe uses the latter. According to studies, healthcare in the USA is about thrice as expensive overall while being inferior in quality to that in Europe. I do not think that is a coincidence.

[Questionable]

And it makes me cry...

[Calin Leafshade]

I do think that the problem with American healthcare is the very existence of the insurance companies but the fact of the matter is that American's dont want a socialised medicine system. America is easily the most pure capitalist nation in the world and even poor 'rednecks' seem to oppose any kind of socialism, until they get sick anyway.

We shouldnt look at this as a case of "it those damn corporations keeping the people down!". The people seem to fully support this kind of thing as far as I can tell.

[FSi++]

I will express my opinion via the medium of this peculiar image.

[Questionable]

I will express my opinion via the medium of this peculiar image.

Hmmm, good points FSi, but I think you're forgetting that these corporation haven't had ANY SORT of regulation or accountability AT ALL since the inception of their existence in America.

[RickJ]

I'll have to disagree with some things here ...

The insurance companies have as their primary aim making money. It is in their best interest to give you as little health care as possible for the highest price you will accept.

It is true that insurance companies are in business to make a profit  but is absurd to believe that mistreating customers is the optimal means of maximising profit. Indeed this a a formula for failure and bankruptcy rather than success.  I don't think profit is a bad thing.  It's the incentive that drives an organisation to operate efficiently, eliminate waste,  and to continuously improve it's self.  The tried and true way to success in private business is to provide a superior product or service and/or a better price that the competition.

The government has as their primary aim the welfare of the citizens (or at least in theory). It is in their best interest to give you as much health care as possible for the lowest price they can manage.

"or at least in theroy" is an admition that this is not the case.  The incentives in a government bureaucracy are all backwards.  Instead of having incentive to eliminate waste and inefficiency government agencies routinely and without exception endeavour to consume ALL funds and resources allocated to them by politicians.  Among government workers it is universally accepted that thgis is an open invitation to politicians to allocate fewer funds and resources in in the future and is to be avoided at all costs.  How can such a system be expected to produce optimal results?

You can take a look at this A 2009  Daily Mail article which states  that "Government NHS policy has placed the emphasis on vote-winning targets such as waiting times, rather than focusing on care".
[/quote]

... According to studies, healthcare in the USA is about thrice as expensive overall while being inferior in quality to that in Europe. I do not think that is a coincidence.

To which studies are you referring and in what way is the US health care system inferior?   

For example last Monday my 77 year old aunt phoned her doctor  to complain about being tired,  short of breath, and feeling lousy.   Before the end of the day she was booked into the hospital, had blood tests for heart attack and stroke, MRI, and other tests performed, and had seen a cardiac specialist who diagnosed her with cardiac arrhythmia. He told her that she needed a pace maker but wanted to monitor her heart for a couple of days to confirm his diagnosis.  So he booked her into the telemetry unit where they wire you up to a wireless monitor that continuously measures heart and other things 24/7.  The resulting measurements are transmitted to  the nurses station where it is monitored and recorded for doctors' later use.   She had surgery on Wednesday to implant her pacemaker and went home on Friday.   

Now compare this with the UK where my aunt would have had to wait 10-18 weeks before receiving  treatment.  ...
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=118403
http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/hospital-guide/hospital/nhs/Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-1183.aspx?procedure=CARDPACEMAKER

That is if she recieved treatment at all.  As I understand it NHS does QOL assements to determine what treatments "are worth it"'.  Based on this and other news I hear about NHS from time to time I am not sure my auntie would be deemed  worthy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1163064/HARRIET-SERGEANT-Why-does-NHS-hate-elderly-much.html

America is easily the most pure capitalist nation in the world and even poor 'rednecks' seem to oppose any kind of socialism, until they get sick anyway.

If a private private company screws you over that you many options.  They can be sued in a court, reported to the the state Attorney General, report to Better Business Bureau,  boycotted,  reported to mass media, publish the details on the internet, etc, etc.

You don't have to be very smart to know that when you get fucked by your government your FUCKED! and have no recourse. 

Honestly, I just can't understand why people put so much trust in government.  Have you never dealt with any government agency?  The people there are dumbest fuckers you will ever meet.  Sure they are probably nice folks when they are at home but at work behave like a bunch of escapees from a Monthy Python skit.

For example the first of the year I rented a PO Box for my wife's business.  The idea was to have a secure address where we could receive 2-3 checks each month.   At the end of the month I went to check on the box and found it stuffed to the max with catalogs and other junk mail addressed to some other guy.  I took this huge pile of mail to the clerk and complained the cobversation went soemthing like this:

RickJ:  Someone else's mail was plugging up my little mail box.

Clerk: No! Its your mail all right!

RickJ: But that's not my name.

Clerk: Yeah but right here is says "or Resident".

RickJ: But that's not my name either.

Clerk: No it's not a name, it means who ever is living at that addrress.

RickJ: But I don't live here at the post office do I.

Clerk: I doesn't matter we still have to deliver that mail to you

RickJ: Why it's not my mail.

Clerk: I don't know we just have to do it.

RickJ: But I don't want it

Clerk: I doesn't matter

RickJ: I can't use the box like this, it's useless to me.

Clerk: I don't care but you can talk to the post master but he's not here to day ..

a few days later I return and talk to the postmaster ...

RickJ: I'm having a problem with the PO Box I recently rented.  It's getting plugged up with catalogues and other junk mail making it unusable for my business purposes.

Postmaster: Yeah, probably the previous renter didn't fill out a change of address form so that's why you're still getting his mail.  If he had filled out the proper forms we would just forwaerd his mial and you wouldn't get it.

RickJ: Ok, so I just have to fill out some forms yto get this fixed

Postmaster:  Oh no, you can't fill out the forms.

RickJ: Why not?

Postmaster: Because it's not your mail.

RickJ: That's what I told the clerk but he said that you have to deliver it to me any way.

Postmaster: Yes that's right.

RickJ: Why?

Postmaster:  I don't know why, we just have to.

RickJ: Isn't there anything I can do?

Postmaster:  (yells to an employee in back room) Hey Fred!  What's up with box 147.

Employee: Oh, that was old Herb's box.

Postmaster: Oh! now I understand what happened.  The gentleman who previously rented that box passed away.

RickJ: Ok, so you're not gong to be sending his mail to me anymore?

Postmaster:  Oh no! We have to.

RickJ: Why?

Postmaster:  Because it's addressed to you box  and he hasn't filled out a change of address form ...

RickJ:  ... because he's dead?

Postmaster:  Yes thats right!

No kidding this actually happened to me just a couple of months ago. 

[mkennedy]

The bill is a good start, But we still need the option to buy into Medicare or other government run insurance. Having a public option is just some competition. If the private insurers can't compete with the public option then they are obviously  an inferior product and don't deserve to be in business anyway.

[Snarky]

I don't think profit is a bad thing.  It's the incentive that drives an organisation to operate efficiently, eliminate waste,  and to continuously improve it's self.  The tried and true way to success in private business is to provide a superior product or service and/or a better price that the competition.
...
"or at least in theroy" is an admition that this is not the case.  The incentives in a government bureaucracy are all backwards.  Instead of having incentive to eliminate waste and inefficiency government agencies routinely and without exception endeavour to consume ALL funds and resources allocated to them by politicians.  Among government workers it is universally accepted that thgis is an open invitation to politicians to allocate fewer funds and resources in in the future and is to be avoided at all costs.  How can such a system be expected to produce optimal results?

Then how come Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans' care are the most efficient healthcare providers in the US, much more so than the private insurance companies?

... According to studies, healthcare in the USA is about thrice as expensive overall while being inferior in quality to that in Europe. I do not think that is a coincidence.

To which studies are you referring and in what way is the US health care system inferior?

This is widely reported and documented. You can start with the Wikipedia articles and go from there. ("The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialized countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries." "although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries." "For 2006-2010, the U.S. life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most developed nations" "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, people in the U.S. without health insurance coverage at some time during 2007 totaled 15.3% of the population" "The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation.")

For example last Monday my 77 year old aunt phoned her doctor  to complain about being tired,  short of breath, and feeling lousy.   Before the end of the day she was booked into the hospital, had blood tests for heart attack and stroke, MRI, and other tests performed, and had seen a cardiac specialist who diagnosed her with cardiac arrhythmia. He told her that she needed a pace maker but wanted to monitor her heart for a couple of days to confirm his diagnosis.  So he booked her into the telemetry unit where they wire you up to a wireless monitor that continuously measures heart and other things 24/7.  The resulting measurements are transmitted to  the nurses station where it is monitored and recorded for doctors' later use.   She had surgery on Wednesday to implant her pacemaker and went home on Friday.

Hope she's OK. Incidentally, was your aunt's tests and treatments paid for by private insurance, or did she receive government-funded healthcare through Medicare? If she's 77, I'm betting the latter.

Now compare this with the UK where my aunt would have had to wait 10-18 weeks before receiving  treatment.  ...
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=118403
http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/hospital-guide/hospital/nhs/Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-1183.aspx?procedure=CARDPACEMAKER

That is if she recieved treatment at all.  As I understand it NHS does QOL assements to determine what treatments "are worth it"'.  Based on this and other news I hear about NHS from time to time I am not sure my auntie would be deemed  worthy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1163064/HARRIET-SERGEANT-Why-does-NHS-hate-elderly-much.html

All nations ration healthcare in some way or another. In the US, this is mainly by price and access: if you can't afford insurance, or you exceed your lifetime maximum, or you have a pre-existing condition that means you can't get insurance, you'll receive a low standard of care. The UK takes another approach, which is statistically more efficient (fewer people die from insufficient care), but certainly has its own drawbacks.

But it should be noted that the British system is first of all: quite austere by international standards; secondly: not the only possible template for universal healthcare (e.g. the French system might be more to your liking); and thirdly: nothing at all like even the most radical serious US reform proposal (single payor).

[Khris]

Here in Germany, every citizen has health insurance. If you can't afford it, the state will pay for it.
If you get sick, you receive treatment, no matter how expensive.
The only thing you have to pay extra is dental plans.

The only bad thing about the German system is that rich people can afford private insurance, i.e. they are first in line, get their own rooms in hospitals, etc.

When I heard for the first time that in the U.S. of all countries, poor people can't afford basic treatment because there's no "universal health care", a term I also hadn't heard before, I was sure I was the victim of a very bad joke. Seriously. I couldn't believe it.

I don't know any details about the current bill, but to me, opposing it seems absurd in the highest degree.
It's like opposing the building of homeless shelters, or the distribution of free condoms. Or opposing gay marriage or the teaching of evolution in public schools.
It's as absurd as telling children that sex is evil instead of explaining to them how contraceptives work, causing the STD rates among teens to be four times those of Europe.

It's funny how the most religious western nation also treats their poor the cruelest.

Welcome to America!

[Radiant]

It is true that insurance companies are in business to make a profit  but is absurd to believe that mistreating customers is the optimal means of maximising profit. Indeed this a a formula for failure and bankruptcy rather than success.  I don't think profit is a bad thing.  It's the incentive that drives an organisation to operate efficiently, eliminate waste,  and to continuously improve it's self.  The tried and true way to success in private business is to provide a superior product or service and/or a better price that the competition.

McDonalds would like a word with you.

[Ali]

So would Microsoft.

It is true that insurance companies are in business to make a profit  but is absurd to believe that mistreating customers is the optimal means of maximising profit.

That's a good point. In addition to mistreating your customers you can mistreat employees and suppliers too.

Look at the way poor quality meat is produced in a way that is harmful to animals, farmers, and consumers but pretty good for supermarkets.