Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
7. As I explained upthread, they are equivalent...
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:35 PM
Oct 2012

with the only difference being that with health insurance people want everything covered while they don't expect car insurance to pay for brake jobs or oil changes. (And we're just talking collision and comprehensive here, not liability.)

Any form of insurance is simply analyzing costs and throwing some money in a pot for the unexpected. Even life insurance exists to pay for an unexpected early death.

Every time you buy a bottle of aspirin, a pack of condoms, or undergo open heart surgery it costs money The open question with health insurance is just who is to pay. Is an annual checkup or a colonoscopy an unexpected cost or regular maintenance of the body? Pregnancy may be unexpected, but in the grand scheme of things is it an "insurable risk"?

We're heading the direction of most of these "maintenance" or planned costs as proper to be included in some sort of health plan. Calling it "insurance" then becomes a misnomer if we're going to cover everything so it no longer resembles car or homeowners insurance but becomes something else.

But, somebody still has to pay, so the costs get spread among plan members or taxpayers. We still have the original formula of adding up and charging for all the costs of pills, MRIs, checkups, minor surgeries and whatever that everyone will have and then throwing some extra money in a pot for open heart surgery and kidney transplants.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Exactly right. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #1
I spent around 20 or so years as a insurance underwriter... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #2
"Messing with the system for political purposes doesn't change the arithmetic . . . " 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #6
Lots of actuarial data exists. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #10
Oops! Just reread my post and what I meant was... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #11
Try as I might- digonswine Oct 2012 #3
In both cases people are charged more due to their gender 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #4
I'm glad you were not comparing the two as equal- digonswine Oct 2012 #5
As I explained upthread, they are equivalent... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #7
I understand that from the insurer's viewpoint- digonswine Oct 2012 #8
I agree with all that 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #13
I'm not even sure how you would make the argument from a social justice viewpoint Major Nikon Oct 2012 #17
I plug any argument or discussion around Health Insurance into my operating system, and I always get Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #9
"US gets single payer health care system! Women expected to be benefit most" 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #12
Everyone would win. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #14
I would go two steps farther Major Nikon Oct 2012 #16
Hmm, I would think that a SPHC funded through taxes would do that sort of automatically Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #19
Just because something is discriminatory, doesn't mean it's wrong Major Nikon Oct 2012 #15
Yup. The opposite of "discriminate" is "indiscriminate" lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #18
I think it is counterproductive to universal and/or single payer Major Nikon Oct 2012 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»Double standard in report...»Reply #7