KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Your argument wasn't personal freedom, your argument was net loss/gain.
I like personal freedom too. High five o/
There is no net loss/gain when people are entering in an agreement for the insurance that clearly follows the methods you outlined above. It is worth what people pay for it - and obviously people pay for it.
The concept of net loss/gain only applies when there is a fixed income (taxation) and variable cost, or the converse. For an insurance company this is profit. Because the company is just a middle-man, the net loss/gain has nothing to do with the absolute cost of the medicine or how much people paid for it that year. They may adjust their rates for the next year in order to change their margins, but that doesn't change what people paid the year before. The debt is incurred neither on the people directly or on the people indirectly by the government saddling the debt.
So because I entered an agreement, its not a loss when someone (or everyone on that particular insurance carrier) pays for the cost of my operations? OK, whatever you say. In the end, other people are paying for my expenses. It doesn't matter if I entered an agreement or not - it's still a net loss for everyone else involved. You are agreeing to take on that potential cost, sure, but it's still there.
It is
not a net loss for everyone involved, because they are choosing to take that burden in order to reduce their financial risk. That reduction in risk is what they are paying for, and that is very much a service.
There is no "net loss" in a willing transaction between two entities. You are getting exactly what it is worth to you.
DrunkFace wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not many people can afford operations and other surgery. That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.
Do you even understand the concept of insurance? Either you are playing a fool or you are one.
Insurance is an optional cost spreading choice...it doesn't force a net loss on anyone.
Insurance relies on some people paying out all or most of the $20k over their lifetime and never using it...that's perfectly fair isn't it? They signed up for it to reduce their financial risk - not because it wins them free money.
But Insurance companies and private hospitals have to make a profit, so along the way there are always people who are losing out. At least in a government run system there is a net break even point.
Insurance companies also employ people out of entrepreneurial ability, not out of the government's pocket. People can't "lose out" when they choose to pay for something...they are either an idiot or they should have chosen not to participate.