The author suggests 'pooling' clients as a way to curtail weasel-behavior (we only pay for injuries to the LEFT side of the body) without truly appreciating that it is just this sort of action which has lead to weasel-behavior in the first place.

Now, most insured Americans get their insurance from their employer (who transfers a portion of their wages to them tax-free in the form of healthcare services, a result of New Deal-era idiocy). Firms have no incentive to fight insurance carriers for iron-clad contracts that would make weasel-behavior impossible becuase the benefits of quality coverage do not accrue to them while the costs associated with negotiation do.

Insurers obviously prefer weasel-enabling contracts and take any opportunity to weasel because their payees (patients) are unlikely to seek other providers in the event of bad service because it would entail quitting their jobs.

Pooling insurance does nothing to improve the situation. Bueaucrats do not benefit from securing iron-clad coverage for the citizens under their charge, although they DO accrue benefits from campaign contributions by insurers. Similarly, a patient in an underserved state is unlikely to move in search of better care.

It's worth asking why weasel-behavior is less common in industries other than health-care. Why does one's bank or tailor or automechanic not engage in this behavior? Because service agreements are negotiated more carefully by those with a stake in the level of service, and because cheaters are punished by loss of business.

The only solution to dishonest behavior by insurers is individuals buying their own insurance from a wider range of independant, competing providers.

kipnchina:

...

The only solution to dishonest behavior by insurers is individuals buying their own insurance from a wider range of independant, competing providers.

That's what they'd like you to believe. In reality, choosing a healthcare provider is extremely difficult if you're not in the health field. The individual will be inundated with all manner of different pitches and angles, none of which they are able to fully comprehend. Creaming would multiply, as companies work to entice the healthy into their "economy" plans, leaving those more at risk stuck in expensive last-resort providers.

A single-payer system levels the field for every patient; the health providers are still to compete amongst themselves for the business of the single payer (government, arms-length non-profit corp, or whatever)

"Pooling insurance does nothing to improve the situation. Bueaucrats do not benefit from securing iron-clad coverage for the citizens under their charge, although they DO accrue benefits from campaign contributions by insurers. Similarly, a patient in an underserved state is unlikely to move in search of better care."

But politicians DO benefit (or suffer), especially when they're the ones suggesting the pooling program to begin with. If Obama threatened to cancel any contracts found to be weasel-ridden AND to fire the bureaucrats who let the weasels get through, you'd probably see some better contracts.