Posted on October 3rd, 2009 by ecthompson Well, this is interesting. Both the Senate and the House supported a public option when it came to property; however, many in the House and Senate canât support a similar public option when it comes to health insurance. Interesting. http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wo...urance-okay-public-health-insurance-not-okay/ http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179458
Nice comparison. The reason for the disparity is obvious. Rich, well-connected people own coastal property and prefer not to pay the full cost of insurance. So you and I pay part of it for them on that beachfront house they bought with their bonus from a bank that we also bailed out. When it comes to health insurance, most rich, well-connected people are already covered, so there's not the same urgency. There's also the issue that public flood insurance is a manageable expense, at least until there is a horrific disaster. Public health care has already bankrupted medicare. Now we want to expand it? Not a great idea. Let rich people pay for their own flood insurance.
How come the health insurance industry has an ANTI TRUST EXEMPTION?Because they know they rape their customers??? Man,that is an admission of guilt right there.That is the first thing that has to go. In fact the hmo industry is the most communist,fascist operation running.It is a near monopoly,they engage in collusion,they reject competition and scrutiny.