> Judah wrote: > It seems highly unlikely that any fecking with the current system > through government intervention will result is a more fecked up > scenario.
That's where our experience differs then. Patching will work, upgrading will work, small slow changes will work. Treating an operational system as greenfield always results in disaster. And if you think the business of insurance is payouts and that it's flawed then I can fully assure you that you don't understand it. Insurance companies buy risk. Payouts are business cost. So what's the problem with health insurance? That's easy: the consumer is selling more risk than the insurance industry wants to buy. That's why there's record bankruptcy. And that has zero to do with insurance or the business model. The idea we've been discussing is that the tax payer buy that additional risk. Take China, for example. They don't have health insurance. Consequence? High savings rates (like 30+%). They plan for and manage their own risk that way, including health. So one question for you is: where do you think the consumer's responsibility lies in managing risk? i.e. if you save all of your money to plan for risk why should you pay for me, a spendthrift? And one last thing I'm not sure you're clear on: if the gov't buys that risk industry isn't willing to buy, that won't do shit to lower costs including their rise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:289056 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
