Well, yes. That's what Capitalism is. Institutionalized greed. It just happens to (theoretically, and in many cases actually) result in the optimal economic situation for the populous at large due to competition, but there are a few caveats - and the one which most people forget/choose to ignore is a low barrier to entry. The natural order of Capitalism is movement towards monopolies - every company wants this, or at least a cartel, where they could have prices artificially inflated to maximize their profits beyond what the supply/demand equilibrium would otherwise naturally go to. However, with a low barrier to entry, competitors can enter and provide better, cheaper services, which keeps the larger companies "honest," so to speak.

Most larger corporations are in a field where the barrier of entry is too high for small companies to come in and keep them honest in this manner. Insurance, by and large, is one of these industries, as the degree to which companies can manipulate their prices is proportional on the basis of how many people are under their "umbrella," so to speak - having a larger pool of members allows you to lower prices more, so new entries to the industry are at an inherent disadvantage, and can't reach critical mass. Because of this, in the insurance industry, there is not much of that "keeping honest" behavior.

But I would argue that we should take a step back further, and think about what the purpose of health insurance is. It started out as smaller communities of people who knew one another banding together and pitching in to pay for expensive procedures which individual families couldn't afford. It wasn't motivated by profit, or by anything other than the concept of caring for ones' neighbor. As the pools grew, it became necessary to have some people manage the funding, but somewhere in that growth, the original purpose - providing payment for treatments which individuals would otherwise be unable to afford - was lost to two problems. First, it became a for-profit industry. Secondly, due to the size, the concept of insurance became rather faceless, and people became more preoccupied with "looking out for number one." They didn't care about their money going to help others in need, they cared about their own premiums, but still wanted the benefits from insurance if the worst should happen to them. These two inevitably led to the situation we're in now.

My question is this: at what point did profit become more important than caring for other human beings who are in need of medical help? From the insurance companies' perspective, they will also result in higher profit by denying coverage to any patient for any sickness, and without the low barrier of entry to competitors, the threat of people leaving en masse for another provider does not hold as much threat as it otherwise would. So, whenever there is any method by which coverage can be denied, they attempt to do so, in the effort to maximize profit.

Health insurance is one of the industries where the product is important enough that its goals should not be dictated by seeking the highest profit. Rather, it should be dictated by providing health care for those who need it. And one of the only methods by which the insurance agencies can be made to be "honest" in terms of coverage and what they charge is to provide a government option - as the government option would not be run for profit, it would provide an alternative which should, theoretically, have lower costs, but better coverage. In order to compete, the insurance agencies will be more capable of reducing their own costs (for the reasons already discussed in this thread in terms of where priorities lay), but will also need to provide better coverage to prevent their members from leaving for the government provided option.

Too many people get hung up on the word "Socialism" and inherently think it evil in all forms, while thinking that Capitalism is automatically good in all situations. No society is purely one or the other, and every circumstance is one which needs to be considered independent from one another in terms of its merits for what would be best for society. Health insurance is one of the areas which should be dictated by something other than pursuit of profit.



Actually, some do. The CEO which stands out most to me with this is Ben and Jerrys, who make it part of corporate policy to ensure that they give back a great deal. Cragislist is another example where he gives away the vast majority of the money he gets. In a non-monetary perspective, Chic-Fil-A isn't open on Sundays for religious reasons at the insistence of the CEO, and also to ensure everyone gets at least one day off a week, when the company would obviously see a jump in revenue by being open the seventh day.