Very interesting, the insurance with the highest rejection rate where the medical spendings are twice the cost per capita compared to European average and the median age is younger, the insurance makes only %6?
What do you do so wrong? What is your mechanism of getting rid of those who provide you the healthcare at low efficiency and hight cost? In Europe we have elections and when those don't yield the desired results we storm the HQ and replace by force.
You can't be expecting that when too many people die the insurance company will lose customers and the shareholders will replace the top management, right?
They are required to spend 80% on actual medical care, add various administrative costs etc. and 6% sounds reasonable. Problem is that this incentivizes them to waste as much money as possible but the whole industry has to "agree" to do that for it to work. So that other insurance companies couldn't undercut them.
What do you do so wrong? What is your mechanism of getting rid of those who provide you the healthcare at low efficiency and hight cost? In Europe we have elections and when those don't yield the desired results we storm the HQ and replace by force.
You can't be expecting that when too many people die the insurance company will lose customers and the shareholders will replace the top management, right?