I think Sebastian is introducing an orthogonal perspective, which has nothing to do with morals. The theoretical ideal is that an insurance company nets zero pr

I think Sebastian is introducing an orthogonal perspective, which has nothing to do with morals. The theoretical ideal is that an insurance company nets zero profit while operating at maximal efficiency. Introducing a third-party (investors) that benefit from extracting revenue is a form of overhead that decreases that potential efficiency. This isn't all bad though. Likely, if it were not for the investors, the company would never exist, so they should have rights to a piece of the pie. Unfortunately, the trade-off introduced is conflict of interest. Investors reward behaviors that maximize revenues be it through cost-cutting, premium hikes, or benefit reductions (or potentially the opposite assuming sales increase enough.) Granted, some of the more negative actions might cause customers to move from one provider to the next because of free markets and whatnot, and theoretically, the market should reward the company that provides the best balance for customers... except that almost all insurance companies are owned by investors, and over the long run, these investors incentivized to maximize revenue in prisoner's-dilemma-like fashion.[0] So... I'd argue introducing investors over the short term is a fantastic idea, but at some point, it's probably wisest give them a heap of profits, and turn off the tap. Otherwise, the company will turn into yet another publicly-traded monstrosity with a mechanical conscience. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion