On 9/23/09 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:01:59 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/23/09 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:36:19 -0400, H the K
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mh2blm

Looking out for the impoverished, Harry?


Of course. Actually, I have no idea what health insurance companies in
their present form do that improves or even maintains the health of
Americans.

Insurance companies normally contract with the prospective insured to
bear the risk of catastrophic loss in return for the promise of
scheduled payments from the prospective insured. Normally, it is the
health care provider that may improve or "maintain the health of
Americans," if that isn't the already the implied responsibility of
the individual.


D'oh...that's not what I meant. I know better than you what health
insurance companies do. In their present "for profit" form (even the
non-profits are in it for profit), they add about 30% to the cost of
providing health care.

Better would be a system in which any legit insurer that wants the biz
would offer only a strong standard package of coverage at a standard
rate, and then make its "profits" on supplemental coverages it sells to
its customers.

That's how Switzerland does it, and it works. Health insurance is
mandatory there.






--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All