I think people's health interests and a insurance company's profits are
counter opposed.
There is no such thing as too being too healthy and well cared or too
much profit.
Since less benefits means more profits they really aren't decent
bedfellows.
One benefits at the expense of the other and with shareholder profit
based companies in control, it's inevitable what the inevitable result
will always be re: cost and amount of benefits and care ....
db
t.piwowar wrote:
On Jul 26, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Rev. S Marshall wrote:
The final product must be bipartisan, and it must use a market-based
approach to address current problems in our nation’s health care.
If I were getting campaign contributions from insurance company
executives who were paying themselves $100,000,000 salaries I would be
pushing a "market-based approach" too.
Propose a "market-based approach" with caps on executive compensation
and I bet he would oppose that too.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
