This is literally the exact point I am making, and the US policy isn’t about saving money.

Like you said (and like I said in my post), for an individual kidnap victim, the best option would be to pay the ransom. It is better to pay the money and be free.

However, that means a kidnap group now has more money, which will make them better able to kidnap another victim and demand more money.

The point of a “no ransom” policy is that it takes the choice away from the individual, who would choose to pay it, and changes the game theory to make kidnapping not worth it.

The whole reason you need a policy at all is BECAUSE it is better for the person to pay the ransom.