[ahepp]

What are you saying here? Do you just think it's unnecessary to audit the way 18% of US GDP is being spent? You think there is no waste, or it's so small to be negligible? Despite the fact that it's well established the US spends more and gets less benefit?

[JohnMakin]

This isn't an audit, and drives up prices. But I guess this response kind of answers my question.

[ahepp]

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying here, but it seems pretty straightforward that you can't run an insurance system without reviewing claims. That's true whether it's a for-profit, not-for-profit, or government run insurance provider.

There's broad consensus that there is a ton of unnecessary and unwarranted care being done in the US. Doctors are not all experts in population health. Even the most well-meaning doctors are still subject to incentives that can lead to excessive testing and expensive treatments that have a low likelihood of improving patient outcomes.

Obviously it is also true that having a profit motive to deny claims incentivizes improper denials. But to simply say "no claim should ever be subject to review or denial, and anyone working to make the system efficient is evil" is deeply ignorant and fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

[JohnMakin]

> But to simply say "no claim should ever be subject to review or denial, and anyone working to make the system efficient is evil" is deeply ignorant and fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

I did not say this. but you do you.

[ahepp]

I'm not sure how you could deny it when you just wrote quite a bit of detail about how you think anyone doing that work is an evil sociopath.

[JohnMakin]

I have no interest debating someone who frames dishonestly what I say to their own arguments. have a good day.