A long time ago, I became a fan of the "win-win" principle. What it basically means is that, in every transaction, both sides come out a winner.

What is indefensible is the idea of portraying one's self as someone who cares about your health (I'm talking the insurance provider here). Then, when you need them the most, when you expect them to live up to their part of the bargain, they cut you off. They profit off of your misery because, now that they've taken your money (the premiums), they've limited their liability and won't lose money. That is "Win-Lose".

I certainly don't begrudge doctors, nurses, specialists, et al, their livelihood. But I think the $300B in insurance company *profits* (again, not the cost of the care provided, this is the gravy on top of that) would be better spent on the actual caregivers.

It's been the American Way to cut out the middleman a lot over the past 30 years or so - wholesale clubs, internet pricing, etc. I'd love to cut out the middleman in this case as well.

The insurance companies are not exactly providing a 'value added' for their services.

As I've stated before, it's my belief that a lot of this comes from the devotion to the shareholder and the next quarter's bottom line (and, hence, the stock price in the morning).

Compare for a moment this crisis with the banking crisis we just went through. Can anyone name me a credit union that went under? Has the NCUA had to bail anyone out? I'm a member of 3 credit unions. I'm a shareholder. My fiancee is a shareholder. My daughter is a shareholder. Most of my friends are shareholders. THEY (the Credit Union) work for US. I get better loan rates, better credit terms, better service, fewer (almost nonexistent) fees, etc.

Mutual insurance agencies got bought up a lot and have been de-mutualized in the name of profits for the new owners (this happened to John Hancock locally).

I would prefer to see a "credit union" or "mutual" version of a solution for this case but the closest thing we'll get to that, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly is "the public option".