[ale] ["Topic"? I don't think it means what you think it means] Re: Incompetent corporate web sites

[wylde bill]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 12:44 -0600, JK wrote:

> general (which is why I also think anti-trust laws ought to
> actually be ENFORCED, and that "too big to fail" == "to big to
> continue to exist as a single corporate entity"), if the "public
> option" were to put every single private insurer out of business,
> I for one would shed no tears.

I wouldn't either.  I hate insurance companies.  With a passion that
makes my hatred of windows look like first love.

The only problem with the "public option" is that we've already tried
letting congress take care of our disability/retirement/medical via
FICA- and if, as the psychologists claim, past behavior is the best
predictor of future behavior, we could be fairly certain that letting
the guys who make and enforce the rules hold the money would screw us
royally yet again.

Let's have a collective that congress can't touch.  And shoot any of the
bastards who try.


> An acquaintance of mine described insurance company operation this way:
> 
> "They take your money, and put 30% of it in their pockets. That's
> their profit.  Then they spend the rest trying to figure out how
> to avoid giving any of it back to you."
> 
> A bit of hyperbole, to be sure, but damn if it doesn't feel true.


I think "a bit" is the perfect description.  It certainly isn't a byte
of it...



-- 
"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no
new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where
there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something
to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to
appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich
and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love." --
Commisar Danilov, "Enemy at the Gates"