QUOTE: After trying to cast Obama as a 'Paris Hilton' type celebrity, he goes and finds one of his own in Palin.

Along those lines, from the September 5 Realtime with Bill Maher's "New Rules" segment....

New Rule: [with shot of Fred Thompson] You can't criticize someone for giving a - quote - "teleprompter speech" in a speech you are reading off a "teleprompter." Also, you can't accuse the other guy of being a celebrity when you, yourself, have been in movies, starred on TV - and modeled for a shoe company. [shot of Thompson next to Hush Puppies hound] He looks like the...

Scott, remember Knut's from Norway.  He's probably not as familiar with the landscape of the American Insurance industry as we are.  We have been throwing the generic term "insurance" around with qualifing it as health insurance, home-owners insurance, etc

Good point.  I wasn't even thinking about him being from Norway.  I would have made the same point but without the tiny bit of sarcasm I threw in.  I apologize for that.

"Funny thing.  I tried to switch my home owners and auto insurance to Blue Cross, Cigna, Aetna, etc. and they just laughed."

Hey, sorry. In my country the comapanies that offer private health insurance (as "extra" health insurance") also provide all other forms of insurance. Maybe in your country all insurance providers specialize. Not in mine.

But from where I'm standing that just makes it easier. If the collapse of health care insurance providers doesn't affect other forms of insurance, then what's the concern, really?

Yeah, yeah, people who invest in the company lose money. Again, that's fucking capitalism! I don't see you calling for "socialist" protectionisms of inefficient businesses in any other areas? Why here?

Knut, you seem to not understand just how big the insurance companies are and what a significant portion of the retirement funds for the non-rich are tied up in them.

Remember, the vast majority of the people who invest in those companies aren't making the investment decisions.  The managers of the retirement funds and 401ks are the ones making the actual investments. 

I'm guessing in Norway when people retire the government takes care of them giving them everything they need to live comfortably?

In the US, no such thing exists.  All the government offers is social security which is enough to keep people at sometimes barely above the poverty level and frequently below it if they are eligible for it at all.

"Knut, you seem to not understand just how big the insurance companies are and what a significant portion of the retirement funds for the non-rich are tied up in them."

I understand. But if this system is ineffective and just a big moneydrain on its customers (many of whom are also its shareholders) and the only reason for not fixing the system is that the insurance industry has a stranglehold on the economy, then one way or another they're a problem that needs to be resolved.

The US cannot perpetuate a failing system just because it has to tread carefully around shareholders.

I'm sorry, but the position of the insurance companies in the economy is only an issue if we agree that they're an inferior solution to the alternative (fully government funded health care). And if choosing the best option leaves (again) the people who profited from promoting the inferior option at other people's expense in the lurch, then that's something to deal with when that problem arises.

The system needs to be changed so that the best health care option is feasible.

Some people may lose big, some will get through it and some will profit. We don't know how that'll shake itself out. What we do know is that if a solution that is known to be bad is allowed to continue, when better solutions are available, the bad solution is likely to get worse and the good solution is likely to be more and more difficult to implement. The negative repercussions that you foresee are only likely to be worse the longer one waits to implement necessary change.

Yes, maybe someone needs to stand by ready to help those who get hurt by such a change, but if change is necessary then it should happen sooner.

I'm sorry, but the position of the insurance companies in the economy is only an issue if we agree that they're an inferior solution to the alternative (fully government funded health care).

That's part of the issue, Knut.  Many people see fully government funded health care as the inferior solution.  Costs would likely be even higher under that type of system because of all the redundancies and inefficiencies in government run programs in the US.