healthcare debate

There’s something I’ve noticed lately. People are vehemently resistant to the notion of “some bureaucrat in Washington” making decisions regarding their healthcare. The ironic thing is that if you are one of the Americans lucky enough to have health insurance (and there are 47 million who are not as fortunate), then – quite literally – you already have bureaucrats making decisions regarding your healthcare. Is a bureaucrat in Chicago or Hartford or Des Moines really that much more worthy of our trust? I think not.

See, insurance companies are corporations and the primary purpose of every corporation is to make money for shareholders. And the only way to make money is to take in more than you pay out. Thereore, insurance companies really don’t have our (customers') best interests at heart. How could they? The natural inclination of every insurance company is to take your money and deny your claim. There are only a couple of things, as far as I can see, that prevent this from happening:
1) fear of litigation
2) fear of losing customers to the competition if customer satisfaction falls below the industry average

So even when insurance companies pay a claim they’re only doing it keep the money rolling in. The even have a word for canceling your policy once you get sick: rescission. And it's legal even if you've been paying into the same plan with the same company for decades. Isn't the reason that you pay into a plan year after year when you're healthy so that it's there when you get sick and need it? Compare that to a government who issues no-bid contracts and fights to keep buying more obsolete bombers that have never seen action in combat. I think I prefer the wasteful apparatus of the federal government to the corner cutting, bottom-line-obsessed machinations of the insurance industry when it comes to making decisions about the quality of my healthcare. But that's just me. More thoughts to follow...