Sure, no socialism there.Quote by: Angry Citizen
Sure, no socialism there.
I upped my income, up yours.
A brilliant day for humanity. Thankfully people will now get the treatment they need. The bill still doesn't go far enough though.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
All insurance functions like a giant "Ponzi scheme"...in that the ONLY way an insurance company can turn a profit is for them to take in more than they ever spend. All insurance involves an absolute necessity that the majority of policy holders pay in more than they ever take out. The idea is that everyone pays, say 5 dollars a week, and you hope most never make a claim, or at least, not a big claim. The only way insurance can work is if claims are less than premiums across the board. So, car insurance works the same way...you pay your 5 bucks a week so that everyone does not have to put 100,000.00 dollars in the bank and save it against the day they "might" have a major accident. Instead, you put a few thousand in a pool, and the pool covers the risk. How can you not understand that if you stay accident free in your car, you are paying for the accidents of others? Its like complaining that when you buy a car, you pay a portion that isn't for the "car", but rather, for the damn factory worker's rent. Imagine how cheap shit would be if we had a slave economy and we weren't all forced to "pay for other people to waste money going to the movies and buying makeup and air-conditioners"!If you hate socialism and love capitalism, you "love" the "Ponzi scheme".
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
No, there is no socialism there, as socialism entails the loss of private ownership. People are still free to start and own insurance companies, they are just not free to take people's money and not actually provide the service they are selling. What is the tragedy in that?
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
It must be nice to believe that there are "no high-risk drivers" in your insurance pool. When you leave your fantasy world, please feel free to resume the debate.But my pool is made up of insured in a similar state as myself. Theoretically, there are no high-risk drivers in my pool, and my pool doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.
Apparently you aren't really aware of what socialism is...Sure, no socialism there.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
No one is claiming that we don't risk paying for others. But the group is made up of drivers with similar records. High-risk drivers are put into another group, and pre-existing conditions are not accepted. We don't have to pay for someone that wants to buy "insurance" for a wreck that's already occurred. Health "insurance" for pre-existing conditions isn't insurance at all, it's merely pushing the costs of that condition onto others.
BTW, you're statement, "All insurance involves an absolute necessity that the majority of policy holders pay in more than they ever take out" is inaccurate. Every single policy holder but one can take out more than they put in if that last person pays enough to cover them.
I upped my income, up yours.
Many high-risk drivers have their policies cancelled. At the very least, high-risk drivers pay more if they want to stay in the pool.
I upped my income, up yours.
So, it comes out: the real reason for your opposition to this law is simple selfishness.Health "insurance" for pre-existing conditions isn't insurance at all, it's merely pushing the costs of that condition onto others.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
You could keep the lights on by cautiously investing the money while you hold it, like a (good) bank and theoretically pay out as much as people put in.
Or you could be a typical business school twit, suck the consumer dry, and force doctors to fight tooth and nail for a single penny.
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
And the reason you support it is your greediness??
You have no idea of how I support various charity causes, on a voluntary basis, yet opposition to government forced charity is selfishness??
I upped my income, up yours.
So letting health insurance companies dominate health care isn't bad, but wanting universal coverage is the garbage of ill-considered desires? Don't get me wrong, I often support charities where and when I can, but they're often just not good enough. At present, charitable giving here and there is unlikely to cope with the sustained costs of healthcare.
The problem with this debate: Republicans have acted as if what we have now isn't "government forced" healthcare. Well, in many ways it is. Insurance and big pharmaceutical companies happen to have a lot of legal power, and have been able to use this to gouge consumers, raise costs and deny coverage.
There are alternatives to both that and the present health care law, but so far they haven't been seriously considered by either party.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
So your solution is government forced donations?? Hard to believe that you're a real anarchist.
I upped my income, up yours.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks