General Discussion

Skip Intro

(19,768 posts)

82. Thanks for clearing all that up, CD.

Reply to CreekDog (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:31 AM

Nov 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you want your insurance to cover you, but not fat, sick or other people, then it's not insurance [View all] CreekDog Nov 2013 OP

Also, even if you're young and healthy, you could have an accident. Arugula Latte Nov 2013 #1

some people, luckily only a minority here, want the benefits of insurance CreekDog Nov 2013 #3

Our own little conservatives. Change has come Nov 2013 #30

You are correct, CreekDog. nt NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #2

Younger drivers pay more than older drivers, Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #4

so what level of discount do you want for being in shape? CreekDog Nov 2013 #5

I live in the country. As part of that Lover Boy and I have a dog. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #6

"Insurance has always been able to account for personal choices and demographics." geek tragedy Nov 2013 #18

A child born with leukemia is nothing like Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #22

Oh, your making a values judgment. The more despicable the behavior the more they should pay. Ed Suspicious Nov 2013 #77

How is that? kcr Nov 2013 #7

Prove the point? I admit the point. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #9

You have a funny way of admitting points. kcr Nov 2013 #11

Should people with DUI accidents pay the same as life long safe drivers? Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #12

Oh, no! Not moral dictates! kcr Nov 2013 #17

You started by saying you had a reason. Obviously you now concede you never did. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #20

Oh, I had a reason. But you incredibly dismissed it as a moral dictate kcr Nov 2013 #21

"You don't believe society has any moral obligations whatsoever?" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #24

I don't know. It seems to me you bring those on yourself kcr Nov 2013 #26

If you conflate people bearing the consequences for their own willful actions Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #28

Yes, you are off the mark kcr Nov 2013 #29

"Either it's the right thing to do or it isn't." Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #51

The question is that... christx30 Nov 2013 #38

That's only the question kcr Nov 2013 #40

I think if someone is paying christx30 Nov 2013 #45

Well, you're free to think anything you want to kcr Nov 2013 #46

But it's not spreading christx30 Nov 2013 #47

But it won't be just smokers kcr Nov 2013 #48

Pregnancy HockeyMom Nov 2013 #55

I see your point but where would you draw the line? You do know that A Simple Game Nov 2013 #37

They absolutely should not only be forced to subsidize smokers, but smokers should get a discount eridani Nov 2013 #50

A teenage driver who drove drunk after midnight on a two-lane rural highway is now a paraplegic FarCenter Nov 2013 #14

I'm sorry I honestly don't understand your point. Could you please elaborate. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #16

Are you saying Dorian Gray Nov 2013 #23

look here and see what he said about slavery... CreekDog Nov 2013 #35

That shit right there. That fucking bullshit. Skip Intro Nov 2013 #83

They aren't ashamed of those words, why would posting their opinion embarass them? CreekDog Nov 2013 #85

Right, so the teenage driver injured that way will just have to draw from their millions in savings CreekDog Nov 2013 #31

Here's what you said about slavery...why should anyone here listen to you on anything else? CreekDog Nov 2013 #33

But what would we charge someone who will get cancer in two years demigoddess Nov 2013 #32

Getting cancer is 2 years is not the same as a lifelong smoker contracting emphysema Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #53

Addiction is illness. Ed Suspicious Nov 2013 #78

It's self-imposed. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #79

It's not that easy. Younger drivers pay more because they are a known risk. They WILL have accidents jtuck004 Nov 2013 #34

None of which disproves my point that the OP is based on a false premise. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #52

The OP said insurance is based on pooling risk - which is true. But whatever you think. n/t jtuck004 Nov 2013 #59

And older people will pay 3x more for health insurance. So what's your point? pnwmom Nov 2013 #69

Health care is a basic human right... life insurance and vicious dogs are not Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #73

A decent compassionate society doesn't penalize people Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #75

Yes it does Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #76

No, that's you imposing a baseless, subjective morality on others. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #80

A subjective baseless morality that EVERY OTHER WESTERN INDUSTRIALZIED NATION ON THE PLANET lives by Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #81

"too bad we're going to let you die" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #84

The original idea of insurance was to share risk ..... oldhippie Nov 2013 #8

Well, heaven forbid we distort the original intent of anything. kcr Nov 2013 #10

Why it's that old liberal redistribution of wealth thing. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #19

The entire insurance industry would collapse. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #13

If only. nt Incitatus Nov 2013 #25

We ought to be fighting the drug/medical device companies to force down their prices!! reformist2 Nov 2013 #15

Yes. Health care accessibility is directly related to cost containment. burnsei sensei Nov 2013 #42

Yeah, because the point of having insurance is so you can get treatment when you're sick Yo_Mama Nov 2013 #27

It's the selfishness of "Why should I pay for your health care?" Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2013 #36

See also: "Why should I pay for your library?", "Why should I pay for your roads?", etc. hatrack Nov 2013 #66

Then there's: "Why should I pay for your Wargasm?" Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2013 #67

You cannot go cheap on the heart and head. Rex Nov 2013 #39

I agree with everything you said CreekDog Nov 2013 #43

I am glad you said it and made this into a thread! Rex Nov 2013 #44

I'm glad someone has brought this up. burnsei sensei Nov 2013 #41

insurance companies are, ironically, totally against taking risks. KG Nov 2013 #49

+1000 HockeyMom Nov 2013 #56

they are a business - why is this a surprise? DrDan Nov 2013 #57

"then it is not insurance" - what does that even mean? DrDan Nov 2013 #54

I got a shock from my car insurance company a few months back OwnedByCats Nov 2013 #58

The weight of the US government shouldn't be brought to bear in service of private profit. Romulox Nov 2013 #60

I'm not pretending it's charity, but this is broad based regulation of a market that hasn't had that CreekDog Nov 2013 #61

It is causing prices to explode, while not covering everybody. And we *already* paid more than Romulox Nov 2013 #62

it's not causing prices to explode, the market reforms have actually slowed the cost increases CreekDog Nov 2013 #63

Rise in health care spending lowest on record CreekDog Nov 2013 #65

That is the period of the Great Recession. People were (and are) broke, leading to lower spending. Romulox Nov 2013 #68

You just said it was causing prices to explode, now you're saying it didn't cause prices to explode CreekDog Nov 2013 #70

Spending and costs aren't the same thing. Just like insurance and care are different. Romulox Nov 2013 #71

2013 is over. Nobody's buying insurance for 2013 right now. CreekDog Nov 2013 #74

Some young asshat was blurbed on NPR about that Orrex Nov 2013 #64

He's right. It is a tax, but one paid to a private, for profit corporation. Romulox Nov 2013 #72

Thanks for clearing all that up, CD. Skip Intro Nov 2013 #82

I realize all this is a joke to you, like the government shutdown was too CreekDog Nov 2013 #86