Is it your belief that UHC could have approved every denied claim and paid for these out of their 6% profit margin? This seems at odds with the numbers I have

Is it your belief that UHC could have approved every denied claim and paid for these out of their 6% profit margin? This seems at odds with the numbers I have seen shared here. If not, what do you think would happen if UHC lost money by paying out every claim that they previously denied? Is there an alternative to charging everyone much higher premiums? Are you saying a government-run insurance company could be run more efficiently, and collect the same amount in premiums yet somehow pay out more in claims? Do you think it is moral for UHC to deny _any_ claims because they are for treatments which are not medically necessary, or too expensive given the potential benefits? Should UHC pay $1M of policyholders premiums for a risky liver transplant for a chronic alcoholic who is still drinking? If you accept it is moral for UHC to deny some claims, how do you know that UHC's policies around denying claims (which led to their 6% profit margin) are actually wrong? Because you read some articles with anecdotes about people's bad experience with them?