>A, an insurance company, is the one fighting to get the cost down from B, the healthcare provider.
If the healthcare cost is zero or negligible the need for insurance is also zero. You just pay it out of pockets.
The insurance company might want to lower their bills (when they do pay for your treatment), but they have a counter-incentive to health costs being lowered too much, and a positive incentive to get health costs higher for the uninsured.
> If the healthcare cost is zero or negligible the need for insurance is also zero. You just pay it out of pockets.
Tautologic, of course, the service insurance gives is precisely the individually unforeseeable cost of disease.
> The insurance company might want to lower their bills (when they do pay for your treatment), but they have a counter-incentive to health costs being lowered too much, and a positive incentive to get health costs higher for the uninsured.
The great enemy of insurance companies is direct-to-provider pay (and insurance one of the historically great political enemies of doctors as well). It's been unfortunately regulated from its inception, but its an intuitive proposition to say that insurance companies win by how efficiently they apply the actuarial model, and how they control the risks and the payouts. Insurance companies that pay more to providers and restrict less coverage of their patients will soon be out of business.
If the healthcare cost is zero or negligible the need for insurance is also zero. You just pay it out of pockets.
The insurance company might want to lower their bills (when they do pay for your treatment), but they have a counter-incentive to health costs being lowered too much, and a positive incentive to get health costs higher for the uninsured.