The profit motive is supposed to be served by efficiency, reducing costs, and delivering better results, not by finding crooked ways to push more and more money into the industry through legislation, coercion, and collusion. I do not have to prove those things, because the fact is simple: the business is set up so that the players have an incentive to make things cost as much as possible. That necessitates never-ending regulations to try to deal with the corrupting influence of that system. WHY? What American has ever argued in favor of an upside-down profit motive like this? In what way does it make sense?
Even people who favor a private system...why would you not favor a system that taps the competitive market forces? Why would we not want to change the health insurance marketplace so that only the players who achieve outcomes with the minimum of waste, the best science, the best relationships with doctors and hospitals, can succeed? The way things are now, they go to lawmakers and complain that they aren't making enough money, and the lawmakers agree to let them raise their rates some more, and then they get back to their golf game. In this state, it's literally a handful of people making that decision each year.
What the fuck is good or reasonable at all about such a system? It's obviously a corrupt insider criminal racket designed to fuck over the market to make a few people ungodly rich.