UnitedHealth overcharged cancer patients for drugs by over 1,000%

One part "free market -- maximize your profits as much as you can and get rewarded by a skyrocketing share price!"

And one part, unspoken except in the PR BS put out by the insurance companies, "Try to improve the health of patients and have them not die!"

The only way the two can coexist at all is if someone draws some lines like you are suggesting. I know that there are some (probably easily manipulated) laws stating that X% of premiums have to be "spent on care" and if they get too high overall margins on your group, they have to give your employer a rebate. Of course, who knows whether you'll see that money.

If we just say "maximize your profits" (and indeed, shareholders 'should' sue them if they don't) then it's obvious that morally bankrupt scum that runs all these insurers would 100% extort people for 1000% profits on lifesaving drugs. It's the most logical course of action! People will pay infinity dollars to save their own lives/their loved ones, so let's soak them!

If it's not obvious, I believe that overall the "free market" part of this system is a failed experiment that should be abolished immediately, and not just because I want all of these companies' sickening, greedy executives to go straight to hell (where Brian Thompson is burning today).

All this on top of being a for-profit corporation whose mission is quite literally to enrich shareholders, instead of helping patients navigate the healthcare system.

RICO them.

DIRECT health care labor costs (doctor's, nurses, etc) are ~40-60% of TOTAL healthcare spending.

Smart people try to figure out ways to make our system better every day. If there was a silver bullet, we'd have already taken it.

Health insurance profits are ~1.2% of total health care spending, the cost of running it is approximately ~4% more.

It's always going to cost SOMETHING to run - whether you move it to the private or public sector is largely a rounding error.

If you take all those insurance jobs and pop them into the Federal Government - you're unlikely to see much efficiency gains (the most pro-medicare articles state it's 37% more efficient - that's an improvement of ~1.5% in total spending).

UHC had a net margin of 6.1% in 2024.

Sure, if all 6.1% of that went to spending instead of profits - health care would be slightly better.

But it's mostly a rounding error. Private health insurance profits are only ~1.2% of total spending.

Maybe you're focused on a ~6.1% margin, or ~$60B in total profits.

You're not going to get substantially better outcomes by simply having ~1.2%-2.7% more money to spend.

You'd need to bring down the actual cost of healthcare substantially - which isn't going to happen unless you pay doctor's and nurses way less money.

Pharmaceuticals are only about 9% of total US healthcare spending - even if you nationalize that (never going to happen) - you're still not getting substantially better / cheaper outcomes.

Profits on pharmaceuticals is The only way you're getting significantly cheaper service is by reducing your biggest cost significantly - i.e. paying less for direct patient healthcare (doctor's, nurses, etc), and that's probably not a great strategy for getting better outcomes.

Who knows? NHS pays doctors dirt, and their system isn't obviously worse than ours. Some people think it's way better, others way worse.