And I do have to disagree with your home insurance analogy.
I should not have to pay more for my insurance just because you decide to build a large expensive house where a hurricane may hit it. Or in a flood plain, or on the San Andreas fault. Your problem, I didn't force you to live there.
Actually, the system doesn't work that way. By pooling all the states into one giant pool, the the negative impact of a catastrophic loss is muted. We've had giant floors in the mid-west, horredous blizzards up north, raging fire in California and hurricanes in the south. Surprisingly, the insurance co's lock down MASSIVE profits. However, when they introduced their creative accounting in the late 90's, all of a sudden they cannot make money and cry to the well-financed politicians.
By your analogy, you should pay part of my winter heating bill because I decided to live in Michigan
Not the same as insurance. Power companies cover a certain area, not the entire country. If they covered the entire country AND offered an intangible product that doesn't require power lines, production, storage, coveyance, etc, they could pool all states together and average the price. Now, when you have a winter blackout, your rate wouldn't have to go up alot. And in the Summer it wouldn't go down alot.
By the same token, if you get hit with chronic blackouts, they will likely raise your rate some, but not have to make up for all of the loss at once.
The problem with focused pooling, for the insureds, is the insurance company bean counters can mathematically justify how huge their risk is and get higher premiums. And people who dont understand the premise of what is happening will look at the simply math results and agree that it is not fair for the insurance co.
Meanwhile, the insurance co is using gold rakes to sweep in the money, then when there is a big loss, using that hoard of money to fight even paying you. So the idea of the unilateral contract become void when they use their power and influence to escape their part of the bargain.
Same with health care, I shouldn't have to pay more just because you drink heavily, use illegal drugs, and decide to be obese. (You gotta stop that by the way :sifone: ).
Hey, you're gonna lose alot of friends if you cast aspersions on the festively intoxicate heroin users on this site. :willy_nilly:
I managed a company in Oregon where all the employees lost their health insurance because of one guy. His first kid had a heriditary terrible disease, they decided to try again, so did the second, they decided to try again, so did the third. The cost to Blue Cross was over $550,000 per year for his family, they pulled coverage for the entire company, (140 employees), and we could not get insurance through any other company.
Once again, a lack personal responsibility costs everyone else.
I got nothing for that guy except: Stupid is as stupid does. But I assume they are loving parents and things just didn't work out for them health-wise.
At the same time, we can start a enw thread about the virtues of the government forcing anyone who is on the government cheese to be given the Norplant 5 Year Contraceptive. This is the clash between pro-lifers and anti-socialism. I firmly believe anyone on welfare should be required to get the contraceptive. If you cannot support yourself and the current litter you have, you should not be allowed to procreate until you are on your own. If you do get pregnant, you are off the gov't cheese.
