So first off, you're adding additional meaning to my statements by saying things like "you view profit as deadweight loss", which is not what I said at all (or if that's what you understood, then my apologies).
Secondly, I don't really think I need to disprove your anecdotal scenarios (which aren't really apples to apples anyways) in order to stand behind my statements..
I will say this: I did originally say that executives and employees should be well-compensated and that the company, while not profit-driven, should still be making enough money to attract top talent and be competitive in the market.
My idea was never about running an insurance company like a charity or a tiny unsophisticated business (as in your host example), it was just about not prioritizing shareholder profits over the core business service provided to the customer (i.e. providing coverage and paying claims), which is what many publicly-traded insurance companies do today.
Secondly, I don't really think I need to disprove your anecdotal scenarios (which aren't really apples to apples anyways) in order to stand behind my statements..
I will say this: I did originally say that executives and employees should be well-compensated and that the company, while not profit-driven, should still be making enough money to attract top talent and be competitive in the market.
My idea was never about running an insurance company like a charity or a tiny unsophisticated business (as in your host example), it was just about not prioritizing shareholder profits over the core business service provided to the customer (i.e. providing coverage and paying claims), which is what many publicly-traded insurance companies do today.