begin quoting Todd Walton as of Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:13:09PM -0500: [snip] > On both sides it makes sense that they're trying to maximize income. > No income, no company, no health care. But you know... My auto > insurance isn't that complicated. It's pretty clear what my auto > insurance policy covers and what it doesn't, and it's usually pretty > clear whether any given incident falls under the covered category. > Why can't health insurance be like that?
There are auto-insurance companies that quibble and fight and do all sorts of underhanded things. My parents moved across country with a straight-truck (we had horses for years, and then it made a handy moving van)... they had a minor problem that required a tow, but when they got to the end of the trip, they discovered that the insurance company had cancelled their coverage. (That's like going to the emergency room and having your HMO kick you out of the program in retaliation.) Back when my sister was in college, she had a car with a T-top. She came home to visit one weekend, and gave a lift to a fellow student. He thought the release-handles were just oddly-placed "panic" handles. Whoops. The insurance company called it a "deliberate" act, and thus wasn't covered, but they'd bump her rates up for filing a claim anyway. (Had she _lied_, and said it was a rock or something, they would've covered it without complaint. That's the price of being honest...) So auto insurance isn't always so straightforward. (There's a reason I pay more for AAA.) That being said, auto insurance has an advantage over health insurance: there's a natural cap. They can just declare your car "totalled" and write it off, give you a check, and tell you to have a nice day. They can't (thank god) do that with your body -- imagine if they could give your spouse a check and then disassemble you for the organ banks... [snip] -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
