Mindless Set

I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is that people think. Do they, for instance, actually think that the insurance companies go to Harvard Business School, the Wharton School of Business, etc. and ask the folks there, "Please, forward to us all of your most ruthless graduates. We wish to turn them into insurance executives." I mean, you do kind of get that feeling out there (i.e., the blogosphere)............................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here. The health insurance companies HAVEN'T been perfect. And, yes, they have in fact played the "heavy" at times (denying people coverage, giving executives huge salaries, etc.). But it isn't as clear cut as a lot of these people are saying. Yes (for instance), they do make a lot of profits. But the 3.5% industry average is actually modest when you compare it to other industries (the beverage industry, for instance). Yes, they do spend a lot of money lobbying. But, damn it all, so, too, do a lot of other folks (trial lawyers, for example). Yes, they've clearly been known to deny coverage from time to time. But ditto, Medicare..............................................................................................In fact, folks, according to the AMA's own National Health Insurers Report Card, Medicare actually denies a higher percentage of claims than private health plans. From their 2008 report, this; Health Net 3.88%, Humana 2.90%, United Health Care 2.68%, Cigna 3.44%, Anthem 4.62%, Medicare 6.85%. Now, granted, the private plans are probably able to do some certain other things (preexisting conditions, etc.) that may in fact even everything out. But, again, it's apparently not as clear cut as we originally thought/were in fact led to believe................................................................................................P.S. I do have another question I'd like to pose. I'd like to ask the partisan Dems out there this. Do you really think that the Medicare system would be appreciably better off had it only been Democrats managing it for the past 20 years? Seriously. I mean, I know that Bush was a dope and everything and that, surely, he probably DID mismanage Medicare at times but, appreciably better, I'm asking. I don't know, to me, the problems in Medicare are largely due to demographic forces; people living longer, baby-boomers aging out, etc.. That, and the fact that newer/more expensive technologies are always coming onto the scene. As far as I know anyway, none of these variables have a partisan bent to them.