car, life, health, whatever...

this news story got me thinking:

Massachusetts lawmakers approved a first-in-the-nation bill yesterday requiring all residents to have health insurance

and then this story got me worried about the insurance companies' business model.

According to the contract she signed, the company, Life Partners, would pay her $90,000 up front, and cover her combined life and health insurance premiums if she lived longer than two years. When she died, the company would collect the full value of the policy, potentially a windfall profit of more than 60 percent, depending on when Smith died.
That was 12 years ago. Smith is still alive, and the company has paid out $100,000 in premiums

the hurricanes and 9/11 attacks left their mark on the insurance industry, but who's paying? everyone who wasn't affected by those disasters is.

I despise mandatory insurance.

Even though it probably is a good idea to have insurance it is unethical and very much opposes freedom to be forced to buy a product or "financial safety net".

Mandatory insurance is nothing more than legalized extortation. "Either you buy our services or you will be penalized by our partner here, the government."

There does seem something seriously mafia-like about this, but it has become so commonplace and integrated into our lifestyles that it is incredibly rare that I ever hear anyone complain about mandatory insurance. I suppose the mentality is: if you can't beat them join 'em.

Mandatory auto insurance seems fine. When driving, there's so much potential to damage people or property that I think it's totally reasonable to require people to be able to pay for it. I don't understand the reasoning behind mandatory health insurance. I do know that if I were a Massachusetts Republican, I'd be pretty pissed.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I don't understand the reasoning behind mandatory health insurance.

The reasoning is that some people are simple not apt to take care of their own business, for whatever reason. In these cases, the state (federal or not) should step up and take care of it, because that's what they're for.

Not crap.

disco suicide wrote:
Mandatory insurance is nothing more than legalized exhortation. "Either you buy our services or you will be penalized by our partner here, the government."

The same reasoning applies to taxes. They infringe on your freedom (whatever that means) and are basically legalized exhortation. Nobody likes paying taxes, but most people see why they are necessary. For example, taxes could provide for a simple, neat system of public health insurance for people who are not in the position to provide themselves with that.

Linus Van Pelt wrote: I do know that if I were a Massachusetts Republican, I'd be pretty pissed.

Those exist?

Personally, i'm fascinated to see how this all plays out. The article i read on it sure didn't illustrate any negatives to the law, but then, it was on an NPR website.

But really, if the philosophy behind the law is "a more healthy populace lowers insurance coverage costs over time," then i can't see why it shouldn't be required. Like auto insurance. Not crap!

I got issues. I don't have a big problem with mandatory auto insurance, since one can choose to drive or not. But health insurance? I was outa work during 2004. I could have bought insurance through COBRA after my layoff, but that would have meant that I couldn't eat. I thought food was a better idea than insurance while I decided what was next for my career.

Apparently the law applies to those that are employed, but I find the distinction minor. Someone making $7/hr at Wal-mart is going to be able to afford a few hundred a month to comply with this law? Even with some sort of "state subsidy"? I'm not convinced. Perhaps I'm some freaked out conspiracy theorist, or I just don't understand the nuances behind the legislation but to me, this looks more like dollars going to corperations that donate to political campaigns than a desire for a more healthy populace. I suspect most of the people the law is targeted at don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, and I haven't heard or read details on how the law is supposed to fix that problem...

I can see where taxation is a good idea, but also, taxation is quite different than car insurance. When I pay taxes I know that my money for the most part or even half part is going towards the greater good of a group of people. When I pay my insurance premiums I really don't know and only assume that much of that money is going towards profit.

Another differentiation between taxes and insurance is that insurance is and should remain a service. Taxes are not a service and historically have been an acceptable form of national revenue when not abused. Insurance on the other hand is a relatively new idea that has become a required service separate from the government which we are required to purchase or be punished. This seems very much like extortion to me, whether its a good idea or not.

One prime example I can think of where mandatory insurance pushes its appropriateness is that you are supposed to insure vehicles even if they are parked in your driveway. Not that everyone does this, but do you see where these laws have become more than a safety net.

On top of all of these things, insurance companies are a seperate entity then a national government, and it has been shown that corporations as a whole if allowed to be personified as an individual personality would all be diagnosed as sociopathic or psychotic, I forget right now which one.

Ultimately, if I had to pay the government for my car insurance it might be a different thing as I have a feeling it would be more fair and less about profit. Whereas the way it is right now, we are merely being co-erced in a sense, to purchase a service that we don't necessarily need.

(Freedom, as in to be able to choose for yourself what is best for you)

Okay okay okay,

I hate to bust out the grammar pedantry here, but in this thread, I have so far seen three attempts at a certain word, so I'm just going to put it out here for everybody's reference:

extortion

That is all for that.


Back to the subject at hand:

I guess I can't really come up with a good opinion on a state's forcing people to buy insurance, since I believe that the government ought to just provide health care anyway. It's hard to approach the question from a "what would you believe if you didn't believe what you believe?" angle.

I guess, Not Crap?

DrAwkward wrote:Those exist?

Somebody voted for Mitt Romney.