White House knew millions couldn't keep health plans

[moralist]

Greg,

Consider the following scenario: A legally emancipated 17-year-old is a senior in high school. She attends high school classes from 8am-11am. She works in an office earning slightly more than minimum wage from 11:30am - 5:30pm M-F and 8am - 2pm Saturdays. Through a specialized program at her local community college, she attends college classes 4 nights a week from 6pm - 10pm. She lives in an efficiency apartment with only the essentials (no phone, no television, no electronic toys). Her car is 10 years old and paid for, but requires frequent maintenance. She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else. She was diagnosed with Chron's Disease at age 15, has had one surgery, must maintain a specific diet, and has 3 prescriptions to treat the symptoms of her illness. Even so, she will most likely require another surgery within the next two years. As Chron's is incurable, she accepts that she will need treatment for the rest of her life. After living expenses, most of her "disposable" income is used to pay for her education (she prefers not to take out student loans) and for the co-pay on her medications. She pays her portion of doctor bills and hospital bills on a payment plan with whatever is left. She has medical insurance through her employer's group plan which is why she works Saturdays because she has to average at least 35 hours per week to be eligible.

What would your advice to this person be? Maintain medical insurance or no?

deleted as premature

Wow... this literally jumped right out of your drama: She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else.

Why not?

That's what families and friends do. It's called love.

Greg

What a dumb statement. Not everyone has family or friends that can financially support them, and some people's families are cruel or abusive.

What kind of person has no friends who love them?

Greg

[dldelancey]

Greg,

Consider the following scenario: A legally emancipated 17-year-old is a senior in high school. She attends high school classes from 8am-11am. She works in an office earning slightly more than minimum wage from 11:30am - 5:30pm M-F and 8am - 2pm Saturdays. Through a specialized program at her local community college, she attends college classes 4 nights a week from 6pm - 10pm. She lives in an efficiency apartment with only the essentials (no phone, no television, no electronic toys). Her car is 10 years old and paid for, but requires frequent maintenance. She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else. She was diagnosed with Chron's Disease at age 15, has had one surgery, must maintain a specific diet, and has 3 prescriptions to treat the symptoms of her illness. Even so, she will most likely require another surgery within the next two years. As Chron's is incurable, she accepts that she will need treatment for the rest of her life. After living expenses, most of her "disposable" income is used to pay for her education (she prefers not to take out student loans) and for the co-pay on her medications. She pays her portion of doctor bills and hospital bills on a payment plan with whatever is left. She has medical insurance through her employer's group plan which is why she works Saturdays because she has to average at least 35 hours per week to be eligible.

What would your advice to this person be? Maintain medical insurance or no?

deleted as premature

Wow... this literally jumped right out of your drama: She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else.

Why not?

That's what families and friends do. It's called love.

Greg

You have stressed many times that a moral person pays his own bills. Are you now qualifying that statement? A moral person pays his own bills except when his family and friends pay them for him? Under what circumstances is expecting his family and friends to pay his bills acceptable?

This has nothing to do with friends, family, or love. It has everything to do with a person who, at a very young age, has already decided to be responsible for herself and for her own bills - a decision I would have expected you to support.

But once again you didn't answer the question posed, neither in your response to me nor in your responses to RB or Carol. It's a very simple question and a yes/no response would suffice, although an explanation of why or why not would be a delightful read, I'm sure. Of course, you may choose to refuse to answer the question. In which case, it would be lovely if you'd simply say so.

Would you advise the girl in the scenario to maintain medical insurance or not?

[moralist]

Greg,

Consider the following scenario: A legally emancipated 17-year-old is a senior in high school. She attends high school classes from 8am-11am. She works in an office earning slightly more than minimum wage from 11:30am - 5:30pm M-F and 8am - 2pm Saturdays. Through a specialized program at her local community college, she attends college classes 4 nights a week from 6pm - 10pm. She lives in an efficiency apartment with only the essentials (no phone, no television, no electronic toys). Her car is 10 years old and paid for, but requires frequent maintenance. She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else. She was diagnosed with Chron's Disease at age 15, has had one surgery, must maintain a specific diet, and has 3 prescriptions to treat the symptoms of her illness. Even so, she will most likely require another surgery within the next two years. As Chron's is incurable, she accepts that she will need treatment for the rest of her life. After living expenses, most of her "disposable" income is used to pay for her education (she prefers not to take out student loans) and for the co-pay on her medications. She pays her portion of doctor bills and hospital bills on a payment plan with whatever is left. She has medical insurance through her employer's group plan which is why she works Saturdays because she has to average at least 35 hours per week to be eligible.

What would your advice to this person be? Maintain medical insurance or no?

deleted as premature

Wow... this literally jumped right out of your drama: She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else.

Why not?

That's what families and friends do. It's called love.

Greg

You have stressed many times that a moral person pays his own bills. Are you now qualifying that statement?

Your made up story was designed to describe someone who cannot pay their own bills because obviously that is the point over which you wish to argue... so your story was to what my comments pertained. And there is a subtle distinction which got passed over in that a moral person does not feel entitled to others paying their bills.

A moral person pays his own bills except when his family and friends pay them for him?

You have that backwards. That's what an immoral person does..

Under what circumstances is expecting his family and friends to pay his bills acceptable?

Never. (see above comment)

This has nothing to do with friends, family, or love.

Wow... just wow.

Ok then... your statement would certainly apply to a person who has poisoned all of their personal relationships with everyone who was close to them so that the only "friends" they have left in life are the insurance bureaucracy and the government they deserve... and those two are quickly becoming one.

It has everything to do with a person who, at a very young age, has already decided to be responsible for herself and for her own bills - a decision I would have expected you to support.

Would you advise the girl in the scenario to maintain medical insurance or not?

I could not advise your make believe girl at all because that person is not real.

There's really no need to try to make an argument for the insurance industry to me, as I already made my choice long ago, and there is no one to stop you from to buying all the insurance you want.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Someone will pay for her care or lack of it. If I go hiking in the Grand Canyon and break my leg in some remote locale, my bones may not be found for a hundred years. That's the price I'd pay. If I leave word of where I go the helicopter swoops in and rescues me and I pay for the ride and spend a week in the hospital and I pay for that. A hundred years later a hiker hikes over my non-existent bones not knowing the unplayed drama of my non-in-situ demise and his non-finder's role, but he breaks his own leg and dies on that very spot! Oh, the non-irony, the non-irony!

--Brant

off the rails again

[dldelancey]

First, my story is 100% true. Second, I described someone who is paying her bills in the manner agreed upon between her and the people with whom she does business - all parties freely associating with each other according to contractual agreements. Third, I established that she is independent financially. I did not introduce any details about the nature of her personal relationships.

The point I set out to argue is that a productive person, moral in the sense that I believe Ayn Rand intended, ought to be free to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement with an insurer and not be meddled with - not by the government and not by sanctimonious asshats.

[Darrell Hougen]

Greg,

Consider the following scenario: A legally emancipated 17-year-old is a senior in high school. She attends high school classes from 8am-11am. She works in an office earning slightly more than minimum wage from 11:30am - 5:30pm M-F and 8am - 2pm Saturdays. Through a specialized program at her local community college, she attends college classes 4 nights a week from 6pm - 10pm. She lives in an efficiency apartment with only the essentials (no phone, no television, no electronic toys). Her car is 10 years old and paid for, but requires frequent maintenance. She receives no support of any kind from her family or anyone else. She was diagnosed with Chron's Disease at age 15, has had one surgery, must maintain a specific diet, and has 3 prescriptions to treat the symptoms of her illness. Even so, she will most likely require another surgery within the next two years. As Chron's is incurable, she accepts that she will need treatment for the rest of her life. After living expenses, most of her "disposable" income is used to pay for her education (she prefers not to take out student loans) and for the co-pay on her medications. She pays her portion of doctor bills and hospital bills on a payment plan with whatever is left. She has medical insurance through her employer's group plan which is why she works Saturdays because she has to average at least 35 hours per week to be eligible.

What would your advice to this person be? Maintain medical insurance or no?

Hi Deanna,

I would say that she should maintain her insurance. It sounds like the disease is pretty serious in her case. Of course, under Obamacare, she could buy insurance whenever she needed it, so that might be a consideration.

I guess I don't know what the purpose of your question was. Is the scenario real? Were you just testing Greg? Were you suggesting that government involvement is not such a bad thing?

The person in the situation is both lucky and unlucky. Unlucky to have a serious medical condition and no parents or others to help her with it and lucky to live in a society that knows what Chron's disease is and has some idea how to help her cope with her condition.

Over the years I have heard or seen innumerable news reports about new treatments for cancer, but I bet that if you went in for treatment, you would be offered one or a combination of three choices, surgery, chemo, and/or radiation. So, what happened to all those other treatments? Some of them seemed to work quite well in clinical trials. Why aren't they available for people willing to pay for them? Could it be that massive government interference in the medical marketplace is preventing them from effectively competing for patient dollars? Maybe there is a cure for Chron's lurking out there somewhere too, but it's just not being pursued with the vigor it should be because of outside factors.

And, though I don't generally agree with Greg's reasoning, I agree that the insurance market could be in trouble due to Obamacare and the fact that insurance companies have to offer insurance at the same price to people that are already sick.

Mark Steyn has a good article about "third party statism."

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

First, my story is 100% true. Second, I described someone who is paying her bills in the manner agreed upon between her and the people with whom she does business - all parties freely associating with each other according to contractual agreements. Third, I established that she is independent financially. I did not introduce any details about the nature of her personal relationships.

The point I set out to argue is that a productive person, moral in the sense that I believe Ayn Rand intended, ought to be free to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement with an insurer and not be meddled with - not by the government and not by sanctimonious asshats.

I certainly agree with this.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Deanna, you certainly believe this person and her situation are real, just as Moralist believes her hypothetical. That is because you do not understand the nature of objective reality as well as he does, and maybe because you are a woman.

[Brant Gaede]

Subjectifying the objective. Objectifying the subjective. Be the objective and the Objectivists will bow, though not the subjectivists. There--that's where the turf war is. Moralist is just taking his act on the road; we are the road.

--Brant

the interior motives, the exterior motives, the posterior motives, even the ulterior motives motivates the motivations (for sure)

[moralist]

First, my story is 100% true.

Fair enough. My response remains the same except for the references to her not being real.

Second, I described someone who is paying her bills in the manner agreed upon between her and the people with whom she does business - all parties freely associating with each other according to contractual agreements. Third, I established that she is independent financially.

Of course. Because of the insurance system, other people are paying her healthcare bills.

I did not introduce any details about the nature of her personal relationships.

Too bad. That's where real help comes from. From family and friends out of their love. For those who are unloved and have no family or friends, there is always the insurance bureaucracy. I'm not against insurance. I just don't need it or want it.

The point I set out to argue is that a productive person, moral in the sense that I believe Ayn Rand intended, ought to be free to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement with an insurer and not be meddled with -

Have you ever stopped to notice that there is something seriously wrong with the insurance system where everyone is paying into it is expecting to get back MORE than they paid in? I mean that's the real point of insurance... to get MORE than you pay for at someone else's expense. Because if it wasn't, then people would simply set aside their own money to pay for their own healthcare bills.

Ponzi scams operate on the premise that each participant pays into the pyramid while expecting to get more back from others lower down in the pyramid. But pyramids will only work as long as there are lots of new suckers to continually rope into the scam.

But what happens when you run out of new suckers? You simply raise the costs for the old suckers, which is exactly what has been going for many years now. That's one reason why insurance premiums have been steadily rising way faster than inflation.

Another reason for rising costs is that there is no competition as long as the person receiving healthcare services is not the one directly paying for them. Heck, the recipient doesn't give a crap what it costs as long as the insurance company is paying for it.

Another reason costs keep going up is that each participant in the pyramid is supporting a huge parasitic bureaucracy with thousands and thousands of employees who produce absolutely nothing except to process insurance billing, keep records, and transfer wealth from one person to another.

Sound familiar? The government people deserve is punched out of that very same Ponzi template.

not by the government

It's way too late late for that little fantasy. The only solution for failing Ponzi scams is to merge with other Ponzi scams to form bigger scams. The failing insurance scam NEEDS the government scam because the government scam has the power to FORCE people into it.

and not by sanctimonious asshats.

Too late for that pipedream, too. Asshats always run Ponzi scams... and this one is turning out to be a real doozy.

For all of the reasons referred to above, I chose not to participate in the insurance scam by taking the alternative path of assuming full personal financial responsibility for the inherent risks of life. So I chose the alternative of dealing directly with my healthcare providers completely outside of the insurance system. You have no idea of the freedom in living completely outside of the whole rotten insurance mess unfolding today. The freedom of knowing that NO ONE can ever take away your healthcare plan.

Insurance is like a pacifier in that it offers the illusion of comfort and security that someone will pay your bills. Baby is happily sucking away as long as the pacifier is in baby's mouth.

But rip the pacifier out of baby's mouth, and baby cries.

That loud wailing sound you're hearing today is tens of millions of babies all getting their insurance pacifiers ripped out of their mouths.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

First, my story is 100% true. Second, I described someone who is paying her bills in the manner agreed upon between her and the people with whom she does business - all parties freely associating with each other according to contractual agreements. Third, I established that she is independent financially. I did not introduce any details about the nature of her personal relationships.

The point I set out to argue is that a productive person, moral in the sense that I believe Ayn Rand intended, ought to be free to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement with an insurer and not be meddled with - not by the government and not by sanctimonious asshats.

Hi Deanna,

Thank you for that clarification. Somehow, I wasn't able to see your comment when I made my earlier comment (#81).

Darrell

[caroljane]

Told ya DDL! He says his answer stays the same, which is the no answer he gave in the first place. Just another sermon. Don't you realize yet that it is all about Him?

[Darrell Hougen]

Have you ever stopped to notice that there is something seriously wrong with the insurance system where everyone is paying into it is expecting to get back MORE than they paid in? I mean that's the real point of insurance... to get MORE than you pay for at someone else's expense. Because if it wasn't, then people would simply set aside their own money to pay for their own healthcare bills.

Greg,

The real point of insurance qua insurance is NOT to get out more than you pay in. The point is to mitigate risk.

Let's take a functioning insurance market such as home insurance which is typically insurance against fire, primarily. Other insurance, such as flood insurance is typically extra.

Anyway, let's assume your house has a 0.1% chance of burning down in a year. That means 1 in 1000 houses will burn down in a year. If your house would cost $300,000 to replace, then you could protect yourself by going in with 999 other people who also own $300,000 houses and each contribute $300 to a pool that would then be paid out if one of the pool participant's houses burned down. But, you're not hoping to collect. You hope your house doesn't burn down.

So, why would it benefit you to join such a group? Because, you would be mitigating your risk.

If the probability of your house burning down was 0.1% per year, then your expected loss per year is $300,000 * 0.001 = $300. So, your payment of $300 would just cover your expected loss. In this scenario you neither gain nor lose anything. However, you gain peace-of-mind, because a loss of $300,000 all at once would be devastating for most people, but a loss of $300 per year is manageable. If you own your house for 50 years, you essentially lose $15,000. But, that guaranteed loss is more manageable than a random loss of $300,000, though your probability of ever losing anything is not that great (about 4.9% over 50 years).

In reality, you're going to have to pay someone to manage the money. That's where the insurance company comes in. They have to pay their employees and are in business to make a profit, so your actual premium is going to be something like $500 (let's say). (An online site says that the probability of your house burning down is actually only 1/16000, but home insurance covers other kinds of losses as well, so let's not get bogged down in the details).

In our hypothetical scenario, your expected loss per year is $300 but the insurance company collects $500, so you lose $200 per year above your expected loss and pay $25,000 over 50 years, thereby losing $10,000 above your expected loss. However, a predictable loss of $25,000 over 50 years is still much more manageable for most people than a sudden and unpredictable loss of $300,000. That's why people have insurance. Not so they can come out ahead in some Ponzi scheme.

Now, admittedly the medical insurance marketplace is screwed up, but it's still not a Ponzi scheme.

Darrell

P.S. Using the probability of 1/16000 of a fire destroying your house, the insurance companies come out pretty well indeed, but you still come out ahead in the sense that you mitigate your risk of loss at a very nominal cost -- less than $50 a month.

[moralist]

Told ya DDL! He says his answer stays the same, which is the no answer he gave in the first place. Just another sermon. Don't you realize yet that it is all about Him?

Hmm... the post was mostly an explanation of why healthcare costs are skyrocketing, why the insurance Ponzi scam is collapsing, and crybabies losing their pacifiers. It's not very balanced to comment on such an overwhelmingly negative situation without at least offering some kind of practical positive solution that actually works.

Greg

[Selene]

Darrel:

I love your intellectual purity in addressing Greg.

However, his complete brain freeze in addressing the issue before us, gives me thanks that he is not a spokesman for objectivism, big "O," or. small.

I have always been stunned by the stupidity of folks like Greg who claim that the purity of their life's experiences should formulate a moral philosophy for every individual who has not been fortunate in the DNA dance.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

Have you ever stopped to notice that there is something seriously wrong with the insurance system where everyone is paying into it is expecting to get back MORE than they paid in? I mean that's the real point of insurance... to get MORE than you pay for at someone else's expense. Because if it wasn't, then people would simply set aside their own money to pay for their own healthcare bills.

Greg,

The real point of insurance qua insurance is NOT to get out more than you pay in. The point is to mitigate risk.

Let's take a functioning insurance market such as home insurance which is typically insurance against fire, primarily. Other insurance, such as flood insurance is typically extra.

Anyway, let's assume your house has a 0.1% chance of burning down in a year. That means 1 in 1000 houses will burn down in a year. If your house would cost $300,000 to replace, then you could protect yourself by going in with 999 other people who also own $300,000 houses and each contribute $300 to a pool that would then be paid out if one of the pool participant's houses burned down. But, you're not hoping to collect. You hope your house doesn't burn down.

So, why would it benefit you to join such a group? Because, you would be mitigating your risk.

If the probability of your house burning down was 0.1% per year, then your expected loss per year is $300,000 * 0.001 = $300. So, your payment of $300 would just cover your expected loss. In this scenario you neither gain nor lose anything. However, you gain peace-of-mind, because a loss of $300,000 all at once would be devastating for most people, but a loss of $300 per year is manageable. If you own your house for 50 years, you essentially lose $15,000. But, that guaranteed loss is more manageable than a random loss of $300,000, though your probability of ever losing anything is not that great (about 4.9% over 50 years).

In reality, you're going to have to pay someone to manage the money. That's where the insurance company comes in. They have to pay their employees and are in business to make a profit, so your actual premium is going to be something like $500 (let's say). (An online site says that the probability of your house burning down is actually only 1/16000, but home insurance covers other kinds of losses as well, so let's not get bogged down in the details).

In our hypothetical scenario, your expected loss per year is $300 but the insurance company collects $500, so you lose $200 per year above your expected loss and pay $25,000 over 50 years, thereby losing $10,000 above your expected loss. However, a predictable loss of $25,000 over 50 years is still much more manageable for most people than a sudden and unpredictable loss of $300,000. That's why people have insurance. Not so they can come out ahead in some Ponzi scheme.

Now, admittedly the medical insurance marketplace is screwed up, but it's still not a Ponzi scheme.

Darrell

P.S. Using the probability of 1/16000 of a fire destroying your house, the insurance companies come out pretty well indeed, but you still come out ahead in the sense that you mitigate your risk of loss at a very nominal cost -- less than $50 a month.

A very cogent rebuttal. Thank you.

[caroljane]

Beautifully said, Adam.

[moralist]

Have you ever stopped to notice that there is something seriously wrong with the insurance system where everyone is paying into it is expecting to get back MORE than they paid in? I mean that's the real point of insurance... to get MORE than you pay for at someone else's expense. Because if it wasn't, then people would simply set aside their own money to pay for their own healthcare bills.

Greg,

The real point of insurance qua insurance is NOT to get out more than you pay in. The point is to mitigate risk.

... by others paying your bills.

I understand the concept, Darrell... and why it is so attractive to so many millions of people. That irresistible feeling of comfort and security of knowing that the insurance industry will make you whole no matter what happens.

In my opinion, insurance is betting against yourself, and in order to win you have to lose. Not only that, you're also paying for rampant insurance fraud and out and out abuse of the products and services which are provided through insurance policies. You're also paying for a bloated bureaucracy that actually rivals the government, and in itself produces absolutely nothing but to transfer wealth from one person to another while taking a hefty "processing fee"... which is just like the government. This is why the unholy union of government/insurance/healthcare is taking place. It's the perfect match of values.

This is why I freely chose self insurance. I'm acting as my own insurance company by setting aside funds for the risks of life. And I get a really good deal because none of my money goes to pay fraudulent claims, frivolous lawsuits, a bloated insurance bureaucracy, or the failures who make a career out of getting court judgments. The premiums I pay to myself are all 100% available to me any time there is a genuine need... and I never even need to file a claim. The simple direct insurance plan I chose puts the whole insurance industry to shame.

And I don't mind in the least catching some flack from the good folks here. It's to be expected, because after all I'm just some heretic who just blasphemed the religious faith of millions of devout believers. Their faith is in the religion of Insurance.

I'm happy that you made the right choice for yourself, Darrell. And that you feel insurance has a genuine purpose in your life to protect you from harm and to make you whole. Pay your premiums with my blessings, because I have absolutely no problem with what you or anyone else chooses. No matter what we choose, we get what we deserve. Right now, millions of people are getting what they deserve for becoming weak and dependent on the feeling that insurance will protect them from the inherent risks of life.

Dependence upon the feelings of comfort and security always carry with them the just and deserved pain when what you had depended upon crumbles... and that is a lesson that millions of people are just beginning to learn right now.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

When you mitigate risk in one area--say your home--you free up action in other areas. Once you pay your premium to the insurance company it's not your money any longer. You have purchased a peace-of-mind service. If you have a claim which is paid it's not the other people's money, it's the insurance company's money. I suppose there could be an insurance co-op in which it would be the other people's money. We can talk about that after Greg concedes my point to the main issue.

Poor Greg. Daniel in the lions' den.

--Brant

smack! (Where's the nice Chianti?)

[Darrell Hougen]

Greg,

There is no reason for the insurance market to crumble, at least the home insurance market. Yes, the health insurance market is in trouble because they are in bed with the government. There is no inherent reason for insurance markets to crumble. They do not share the values of the government. Insurance is not an involuntary wealth transfer scheme. Would you characterize charity as a wealth transfer scheme?

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Greg,

Would you characterize charity as a wealth transfer scheme?

Darrell

I would, albeit "voluntary."

--Brant

[moralist]

When you mitigate risk in one area--say your home--you free up action in other areas. Once you pay your premium to the insurance company it's not your money any longer. You have purchased a peace-of-mind service.

I'll happily acknowledge your point, Brant... because I already had previously. Paying insurance premiums certainly offers people the feeling of safety, security, and protection. But because my peace of mind is derived from something else which is heretical to the religion of insurance, consequently there's simply no need for it when I can simply insure myself. I also chose the alternative of operating completely outside of the corrupted insurance industry, because it frees me up in every area.

If you have a claim which is paid it's not the other people's money, it's the insurance company's money.

That explains why I chose to be responsible for my own life, instead of being dependent on insurance companies. Then it's all my money... all the time. I have total autonomy over my own claims.

I suppose there could be an insurance co-op in which it would be the other people's money. We can talk about that after Greg concedes my point to the main issue.

Poor Greg. Daniel in the lions' den.

--Brant

smack! (Where's the nice Chianti?)

It's ok as long as you all can keep the muzzles on.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg,

There is no reason for the insurance market to crumble,

There's no reason for the insurance pyramid not to crumble. No system is sustainable when every participant feels entitled to get back more than they pay in.

at least the home insurance market.

I chose an alternative to home insurance by building insurance into my home.

Protection: Substantial

Premiums: Zero

Yes, the health insurance market is in trouble because they are in bed with the government. There is no inherent reason for insurance markets to crumble. They do not share the values of the government. Insurance is not an involuntary wealth transfer scheme.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

Would you characterize charity as a wealth transfer scheme?

Not at all. Because there is no feeling entitled to get back more than you put in.

The religion of insurance has its own internally sound logic, and you are doing a goof job of defending your beliefs. But the articles of faith of the religion of insurance are entirely different when viewed from the outside world by an unbeliever.

So I'll remain happily unconverted because I already chose a personal alternative that works.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

It'd make more sense to talk about health insurance separately from other types since it is in mostly the other types that hoi polloi here get conflicted with Greg who likes to spread his jelly over the whole piece of toast.

In US medicine third-party payer came into great vogue in WWII as employers used it as a pay inducement as they were forbidden to simply offer higher wages. It was as such the indirect way government became generally involved with medicine. This was sort of coincident with the establishment of Social Security in the late 1930s. Logically Medicare, established in the 1960s, was the supercharged offshoot and did the most harm respecting the control and pricing of medical services. Now the system is destroying itself. Unfortunately, patients, doctors and other health care "providers" are just beginning to get ground up in the out of control through control machinery. Doctors, in particular, are starting to say "enough is enough!" When the patients themselves reach the "enough" stage they'll be looking at a medical wasteland aping the kind of medicine that was available in the former USSR.

In regard to the quality and price of medicine we could be enjoying right now if there hadn't come the dominance of third-party paying and government regulation of the medical business and industry and out of control tort, it is already a wasteland. (Because of my medical training and experience, I am especially keen on this.)

Doctors are not slaves--or shouldn't be--but Obamacare treats them like they were. In Atlas Shrugged going on strike was generalized amongst the men of ability, but in actuality it is going to be manifest group by affected group. Even so the obviousness of the situation will be muted by the can't see, won't see non-thinking population, which doesn't include Greg, who's a thinker who pretends he isn't. (Thinking as a "stolen concept"?)

--Brant

[anthony]

I'm not exactly fond of the insurance industry, having taken a big loss once (a stolen car) on which a big company found invalid cause to renege payment, and heard of many other similar instances. I recognize it plays an important role, though.

The other option of 'self insurance' always appealed to me, but would depend on starting young, having a reasonably predictable income and possessing high self-discipline to regularly feed and not touch your fund - exactly things you tend to lack when young. ;)