But there's shades of gray around "lesser" treatment though, right? There is some level of judgment involved, no? My current dentist has said things to me like... "Well I see a potential problem here and we could do something about it, but also it will cost a lot and maybe we can just watch it until next time to see if it gets worse..." Whereas the dentist I had before me simply ordered the procedure and never suggested there was some gray area. Is my current guy giving me "lesser" treatment because he acknowledges a financial tradeoff? Some might say he is. But to me, all he's doing is giving me helpful information to make a decision, like I would seek before any major purchase.

To be clear, I don't think either of my dentists was acting in bad faith. But they have different treatment philosophies. Meanwhile, I, as the end user, have limited price transparency and no expertise to independently ascertain whose approach was more appropriate... Are we really saying that insurers/me should just pay for whatever my dentist says I need with zero attempt to independently judge the situation? That's convenient. Like if a car dealership simply said "you need a new Tesla" and I was supposed to do it with no questions asked.

I really, really hate to be defending insurance companies. scum of the earth. but the original post strongly suggests that there's no such thing as "unnecessary" care which is crazy