USA Today looks at a company that sells health insurance policies with limited coverage. At issue: 36 states are investigating the company for alleged wrongdoings, including fraudulent sales practices.

Along the way, the paper captures one element of the health insurance debate:

Limited-benefit plans are better than no insurance, some health care analysts say, and their generally lower premiums appeal to those on tight budgets. Others question whether coverage that can leave policyholders with large bills can truly be called insurance.

The answer to that question depends on whether you think of insurance as a measure of protection against catastrophic events, or as we people often think of it, a form of of prepayment.

Naturally, some policies offer more protection than others. But at least one family mentioned put it all in perspective: "Penny Wilson, mother of the teen with leukemia, owes $22,000 in hospital bills. She says that's better than the $1 million she might have owed without insurance."

There are several lessons that might be taken from this article

• Read your policies carefully. Perhaps this signals the need for someone like a lawyer versed in health insurance policies of a consumer rating service, which can help consumers know just what is and what is not covered by their plans.
• Problems, perceived or real, with policies sold to individuals (whether or not through associations) give a black eye to the kind of market that we ought to be see developing for insurance--the widespread use of non-employment-based policies.
• There's still room for changes and improvements in the supply of health insurance.