On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Warren Ockrassa<war...@nightwares.com> wrote:
> But you're not restricted from any of them. You listed certain things with minimal restrictions, but not ones that have more substantial restrictions. > Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price for a > routine doctor's visit? Living on minimum wage? Now you are not talking about health insurance in the sense of the true meaning of insurance, but rather having someone else pay for someone's routine medical care. Which may or may not be something worth doing, but it is not insurance against unexpected events. > It might not have been, but under the same coverage, someone else in my plan > littered sextuplets, at a rough cost of a quarter of a million dollars. Was > that worth it to me? Absolutely not. Nevertheless I keep the coverage, as > she does, and I pay into it, as she does, to cover healthcare costs I will > never have to face -- as she does. Which is inefficient. People are paying more than the care is worth because they are not spending their own money. And the sextuplets (or 4 or 5) were likely able to be predicted, since the woman was probably on fertility drugs. When people talk about how much America spends on health care, these are some of the reasons for the high spending. > No, you'd pass off responsibility to the "free market" system, wouldn't you? Passing responsibility? I do not feel I am responsible for everyone in the US, or everyone in the world. But it does please me to help those who I can, and who seem to be in the most need and derive the most benefit from my help. >> But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care >> should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating >> your own time or money. > > Yes. And that's what insurance is all about. No, insurance is not donation, it is receiving value for payment. > And you live that, every day, by every choice you make? How do you know > that? How do you know that by giving a few pennies of your income, and > turning that into government revenue for the internet, highways and the FDA, > you are not actually working either for or against someone else's freedom? That would not be directly. It would be indirectly. > More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies will > make a difference for you or anyone else? If I were sure about something, then I would perhaps feel justified coercing someone else to do something to obtain a better outcome. Being unsure about most everything, I respect everyone's right to choose as they see fit. > You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment -- on > your life savings. As I said before, that is the purpose of insurance, which pools money and covers unexpected expenses. I think you know this. My point is that most health care plans are not just insurance, but are cafeteria plans, all-you-can eat. > Would I be willing to help pay for that? Yes, just as much as I was glad > that "others" paid to help me learn why I was sneezing so much I am not arguing against insurance. Far from it, I like and buy insurance. I am only arguing against coercion and interference with insurance consumers and providers. > Oh, so you can't do both? Why not? Because I don't have enough money to keep everyone in the world alive and healthy forever. > That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history. There are private roads. I am familiar with some in the Chicago/Indiana area. They seem to be working fairly well. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
