You have to ask harder questions. How about squeezing providers, so you pay them just enough to provide a quality service, but not much more? The demonic insurance company CEO has an incentive to make providers work as cheaply as possible, so he has more money for himself. With the rest of the savings he can procure more services that his competitor can’t, so the CEO can get more money in the future. If that same CEO were to have a religious conversion, have his sins washed away, and thereby be eligible to run for political office he’s happily take campaign donations from providers that pad their bills.
“ It’s just pooling money that people put in and handing out payments here and there. It’s not really something you can improve.”
Sounds like a betting operation, does it not? It’s been a real money-maker over the years. New York City OTB went bankrupt and closed, because they were padding the ranks with no-work jobs, and featured smaller payoffs than bookies.
“ After a certain point, health care is just rent-seeking”
You couldn’t be more wrong. Rent-seeking is not profit-seeking. In profit-seeking, both parties to a transaction gain. In rent-seeking only one party gains — the other is compelled by force or regulation. Do you think the patient, the manufacturer, and the third-party payer don’t all profit from delivery of a pacemaker? Or delivery of medicine? Or eyeglasses?