I have to have a point now?
Well, crap.
Sucks, don’t it? 
We’re overlooking how good government-sponsored healthcare was during the slavery era.
In fact, during the Civil War, combatants were never charged for morphine and wear and tear on the bone saws.
Totally wrong! Could cost you an arm and a leg…
Like our Congress!
And now the circle of life is complete.
Morphine? Shit, they drank a bottle of whiskey and bit down on a dirty rag and LIKED IT.
I have no statistics on whether or not any of them were charged with for tooth holes in the rag.
Now, now - I wouldn’t say that you are whining! Well, at least not right at this moment…
They, uh, don’t charge current combatants for battlefield care do they?? :eek:
Don’t give them any ideas…
Explain to a withering Turnip, using small words, how healthy people subsidizing sick people with their private insurance premiums = something gained, while healthy people subsidizing sick people with their tax-paid insurance premiums = money flushed.
A difference so subtle may require broad strokes with fat crayon. Please, the canvas is yours.
You are using logic to explain that… it’s impossible for a private health insurer to turn a profit?
Oohh, Oohh, Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
It’s because “Government has never created a job.”
If you send a check to a corporation, it allows stockholders to accumulate wealth and executives to have jobs which pay large bonuses.
If you send that check to the gubbmint, it only prolongs the life of a faceless bureaucrat, which helps no one at all.
Remember, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Here, I’ll post this smiley, so you don’t have to: :smack:
The difference is huge. When someone pays insurance premiums, they get insurance, which they can use at any time. I have no idea what the percentages are (and couldn’t find them) but I’d say that most insured people will file a claim at least once in the time they are insured. They also get the peace of mind knowing that if they need health care, they have insurance.
However, when I pay taxes to support Medicaid (MediCal in California) and DentiCal, I get no return for that money. There are those that will say a healthy society is a productive society, but in reality all we have here is a large number of people raising their families on the taxpayers dime, while not contributing much if anything. And the waste and graft is huge. Anyone that wishes to see what happens when the government steps in and supports people from cradle to grave should have a look here. It ain’t pretty.
Did you miss that the insurance companies invest the premiums? I was making the point there that insurance companies cannot make a profit if all they do is take in premiums and pay out claims, even given a percentage of people who pay premiums without making claims. Health insurance isn’t like other insurance - car, home owners, etc - in that it is expected that a majority of the insureds will make claims each year. And there is no way that they would be able to sell policies if the premiums they charged were supposed to cover all the claim money they expected to have to pay out.
Health care has gotten desperately expensive. There are things that are driving those costs that could be dealt with instead of just adding more taxes, but I suppose that the lobbies for the AMA, ABA and the fundies are just too strong.
That is exactly why the for-profit health insurance model makes no sense. Insurance is something you take against something you hope will not happen; the health insurance system doesn’t work that way.
Hakuna matata, Yeticus, hakuna matata.
It doesn’t work that way now. Over the decades people have gotten the idea that simply because they pay for insurance, that company should send them money whenever something bad happens to them. Whether it’s covered or not - there’s a pit in here someplace started by a guy who is made because his homeowners won’t cover a flood he had, even tho he didn’t have flood insurance.
It’s much worse in medical and dental insurance because of a variety of factors, that mostly boil down to far too many people think that “big business” or “the government” should be paying their way.
That’s my thread. I don’t know if you’re being snarky or dumb there - but that thread was not about flooding, unless you think rain entering a hole eight feet above ground is “flooding”. In any case, the main reason I pitted State Farm was because they cancelled our policy three days after we filed a claim, under the almost comic excuse that they don’t provide coverage in my area.
People have gotten the idea that simply because they pay for insurance they should be insured.
Its part of the innovative spirit of modern American business, they’re thinking “outside the box” by changing the definition from “payment” (with implied responsibilities that may prove inconvenient) to “donation” (which is an expression of your good will and continuing commitment to the well-being of State Farm).
And they thank you.
And your definition of flooding is? The rain from a tropical storm entered your house and flooded it, or some rooms (can’t remember how much now). Unless you are insured for flooding, you aren’t covered. I think if you are flooded due to a broken pipe in your house, you’d be covered but acts of God? Not unless you have a flood rider or separate policy. Flooding is not merely water overflowing a river or something like that.
If I recall correctly, you were not the only one in your area that State Farm canceled, right? Not that it matters to the point I was making.
You are insured for what you paid for. You didn’t pay for flood insurance. But you are a great example of what I was talking about. You had an issue with your house, you expect that “big business” will take care of it. When it is pointed out that you didn’t buy a policy to cover flooding, you blame everyone but yourself.
Our policy covered “general water damage”. Flooding is water at ground level; our water damage had nothing to do with water at ground level.
You remember incorrectly. Several months after the incident in question, State Farm announced it was cancelling all Florida homeowners’ insurance policies (and recanted when the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation told them that would mean they’d lose their insurance charter for all policy types).
Our next-door neighbors had a State Farm homeowners’ policy which had been in effect for eight years, and is still in effect, as far as I know.
We didn’t pay for flood insurance and we didn’t have a flood. I haven’t blamed anyone except State Farm. I expect “big business” to honor their contracts. Silly me, right?
I’m afraid your definition of “flooding” has no impact on the definition that insurance companies use. Tho it is kind of silly to say that your flood wasn’t at ground level.
Several months is essentially at the same time. You seem to want to take credit for State Farm canceling all these policies.
Did you notice that your cite provided two definitions for the word flood?
No, you don’t, you expect that “big business” will give you money because you demand it. I really have trouble believing that a large national company would deny your claim out of hand if that sort of flooding had been covered under your policy. It is far more likely that you simply didn’t understand what you signed.
Anyway, this is getting far afield of this thread’s subject so if you want to continue it, you are probably best served to open a new one.