Note Well:
This blog is intended for rational audiences. Its contents are the personal opinions of its author. If you quote from this blog, which you
may do with attribution, please assume personal accountability for any consequences of mischaracterizing these expressed intentions.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

What part of "insurance" don't you understand? (Updated)

Related Link » Real Debate Is Individualism Vs. Collectivism
Insurance is a form of financing for the unexpected and unpredictable. It is not a mechanism to force somebody else to pick up the tab for expenses you have already incurred. Do the Democrats even understand what insurance is? It is a contract under which a health insurance company agrees to pay for medical bills that could run into the tens of thousands of dollars, if you are hit by a bus or are diagnosed with cancer, so that you don't have to pay for those bills out of your income or savings.
So if insurance companies have to take on a known expense and can't charge a higher rate for it, how are they going to pay for it? By raising everyone else's premiums, redistributing their wealth to the new freeloaders. This isn't insurance, it's welfare.” [emphasis added]
— ‘By ROBERT TRACINSKI | Posted Tuesday, August 11, 2009’
In most [perhaps all] states the motor vehicle bureau requires a car owner to carry liability insurance. This is because most car owners would be ruined financially if they had to pay a typical jury-decided liability penalty in case of their fault during a car accident. In all such insurance policies, no one can get insurance coverage for a penalty they have already incurred! Why? Because that is not insurance! That is welfare, which insurance companies are not in the business of paying.

Welfare is not business. Welfare is socialism. And in a socialist state, where does the welfare come from? It comes from the taxes that other people pay. What did you expect, the tooth fairy?

Dear Readers, this post is not intended as an invitation to another venue for the general debate about "how healthcare should be paid for in the United States of America". That is part of the National debate currently being waged throughout America, very vocally, very passionately, and sometimes violently.

In this post, I am merely pointing out the obvious distinction to be made between insurance and welfare. In so doing, my hope is that the much more general National debate will at least be based on the merits, if any, of the specific alternative methods for paying the costs of universal healthcare.

I have no interest in allowing such arguments to be waged in my own private corner of the blogosphere. There are many other online and offline venues for such shouting matches. Go forth and champion your favorite scheme. Elsewhere.

Post #889 What part of "insurance" don't you understand? (Updated)

No comments:

Post a Comment