No, you don’t get it. Health insurance companies have not ‘transferred risk off of themselves’ to the government. They offer a product, my friend, and are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to offer that product to people who are already unhealthy (likely due to overindulgence and a lack of exercise).
Do you know it is virtually impossible to get individual coverage if you have any kind of history at all?
Where is the logic that compels us to accept that health insurance firms have a moral obligation to insure individuals who are sick? It really is nonsense, this idea of yours. Insurance companies are in business, and when you go into business, your aim is to make money. Now were health insurance companies charities then you’d have a point. But they are businesses. Your point is flawed.
And are you happy about sharing the cost of treating the fully-employed uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms with infections or chest pain or diabetic complications that could have been treated at less cost if they had insurance and had seen a doctor earlier?
Well then perhaps there is a better way to solve this problem than by committing the wrong of forcing businesses to make decisions that are not profitable. Perhaps we can instead use government funds to help more Americans get off their fat arses and exercise and stop eating so friggin’ much.
If the govt is doing anything to "regulate" health care it is because, as has been the case in so many other industries, they are acting irresponsibly to the detriment of the general population.
Well it really depends upon what you mean by “acting irresponsibly.” If the companies are reneging on their contracts, then of course the law is against them. But if they are refusing to insure sick folks or folks who are predisposed to sickness, there is no irresponsibility. Indeed, it would be irresponsible of their leadership to make such bad business policies. Again, these are businesses—not friggin’ charities.
What would be your idea of a "valid" efficiency that has yet to be implemented?
That was not my point. My point was that health insurers are getting heat that eventually will proscribe their treating their business as other leaders treat theirs. Here is one valid efficiency that is under threat: not insuring folks who are already sick. It is valid, but liberals are frothing at their friggin’ mouths about it.
That is one of the more paranoid statements I've seen on this thread. Do you realize your insurance company and your bank know far more about you than the government? If information is power, and if power can be misused to control, then it is they you should be concerned about.
Perhaps. One never knows, DO one? In any event, that they know about me is not the issue. It concerns their power to use it against me. I would much rather trust a free market wherein I am free to reject a product and move to a competitor, or wherein I am free to devise my own solutions, than a friggin’ government that has all the goods in its hand and that forces me by law to accept those goods or die. Maaan, shooot. You crazy with all this socialist crap. (grin) |
