We don't want health insurance apparently

[mrbogey]

Insurance is if something bad should happen to you. Almost all the cases cited by people demanding reform as well as the reforms they demand are not insurance. They're demands for subsidies. When someone has a condition that costs them $2,000 a month in pills there's no way for an insurance to cover that and still make money charging a few hundred

Comments

[duckspeaker]

But duh...that's how insurance works!

Everyone in the plan pays into the kettle based on the odds.
When someone in the plan experiences a catastrophe, the collective money is used to cover it.
Most people don't have a catastrophe, most people spend more on insurance than they will ever recover from it. Insurance companies know this and ensure there is enough profit left in the kettle for themselves.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

But what you are suggesting...is pretty much the way it works now.
So what is your point???

[mrbogey]

But that's just it. Insurance works on a gamble where the odds slightly favor the house. By telling insurance they need to pay out more you're defeating the purpose of the gamble.

When someone with an existing health problem who never bought insurance tries to get cut-rate medicine, they're asking for a subsidy, plain and simple. That's not insurance.

[duckspeaker]

That may be...but it's not what you said.

I might add, that most of the plans suggested require everyone to have insurance or be penalized. So...they will be paying into the system.

Subsidies are as American as apple pie and Washington's mommy.

Does this opinion hold true across the myriad of subsidies promoted in this country?
Free Education?
Tobacco and corn?
Tax breaks (call 'em incentives) to big corporations?

[mrbogey]

'That may be...but it's not what you said.'

Sure it's what I said.

'Does this opinion hold true across the myriad of subsidies promoted in this country?'

What do you think?

[duckspeaker]

"Sure it's what I said"
I don't think so.
Your original comment said nothing about "someone with an existing health problem who never bought insurance"
Additional...no one is telling insurance companies they have to take a loss by paying out more than they are taking in.

"What do you think?"
As a general rule, I don't think we should "subsidize" people or business.
With some exceptions

Here is one:
I don't know about other states, but education funding comes from my property taxes. And I'm fine with that. My neighborhood, my America is better off if the children are educated, and I think we should strive for the best education in the world. It's good for quality of life, and it's good for business.

Another:
I could probably be talked into subsidies for some agriculture to ensure independence from foreign sources. But we'd have to work out the details...it wouldn't be a simple bag 'o money.

But basically...everyone (private or corporate citizen) should pay their own way. An accentuated tax with no deductions.

You?

[mrbogey]

'Your original comment said nothing about "someone with an existing health problem who never bought insurance"'

I said, 'Insurance is if something bad should happen to you'. If something bad happens to you and you have insurance, well, you go to them. If not then you can't satisfy the conditions of the sentence as the bad thing will have already have happened to you. Now if I had said, "Insurance is for when something bad happens to you", then you'd be correct.

'I don't know about other states, but education funding comes from my property taxes.'

But that's not subsidization. that's a forced fee. They get their budget from millage. Outside of that there is a few grants from the DoE but they're not generally used for normal operations. Though they should really scrap all of that too.

[duckspeaker]

"Forced fee" or "public money" (aka subsidies)

I think you are quibbling.