Yes. That's all very well established. My sole point since the beginning is that suffering does not create profits and that means "that directly profits off of human misery" is inaccurate and a low-effort talking point.

Personal injury lawyer? Can't profit without the injury. They go out of business if there is no misery.
Health insurance? Can profit without the illness. They can stay in business with only the worry of potential misery.

I don't understand how people see words on a screen that say, "this canned line deliberately taints discussion" and read it as "I love everything about insurance companies, they do no wrong. They're all the best and are totally ethical!" It's possible to nitpick rhetoric without being the enemy team.

Yes. That's all very well established. My sole point since the beginning is that suffering does not create profits and that means "that directly profits off of human misery" is inaccurate and a low-effort talking point.

Personal injury lawyer? Can't profit without the injury. They go out of business if there is no misery.
Health insurance? Can profit without the illness. They can stay in business with only the worry of potential misery.

I don't understand how people see words on a screen that say, "this canned line deliberately taints discussion" and read it as "I love everything about insurance companies, they do no wrong. They're all the best and are totally ethical!"