Replies

No, I don't look at insurance as a savings account. I look at insurance as legalized system of extortion. There are very few products that have so much contempt for the customer and offers [sic] so little redeeming value that laws have to be passed to make people buy it.

No laws before Obama have ever been passed to make people buy health insurance.

As far as the argument that medical costs can can exceed millions of dollars, they are very far and few between, otherwise your premiums would have to be tens of thousands of dollars per month in order for Insurance companies survive, much less make a profit. For these rare occurrences, bankruptcy courts exist.

No one previous to the Obama administration was forced to obtain health insurance. It was a successful product people chose for the benefits it offered to offset the disadvantages not having it portended. It provided them a way to offset costs in a way that didn't, like bankruptcy court, tell those owed the money to suffer the loss themselves.

I've never heard any of my tenants complain about their rents.

That's probably because they, unlike yourself with health insurance, see renting as a pay-for-use arrangement that meets their housing needs rather than extortion that permits you to take their money without giving them any property in return.

It's evident that you, in addition to being an FR neophyte, are more motivated at maintaining your argument through the use of special and idiosyncratic definitions than anything else, much like those who claim that Nutrasweet is a deadly poison or that mercury amalgam fillings are the cause of a multitude of human ailments.

You have chosen your name well.

“No laws before Obama have ever been passed to make people buy health insurance.”

To name a couple off the top of my head...Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of California.

“No one previous to the Obama administration was forced to obtain health insurance.”

See above.

“It was a successful product people chose for the benefits it offered to offset the disadvantages not having it portended.”

Product implies production. Let's agree the only production Insurance contrives is the production of profits and ever increasing costs.

It was first developed during the late 1800s, the same era that brought us snake oil, robber barons,carpet baggers, false goldmines, and other schemes designed to part money from honest people who actually had to work for it.

Later the Unions (including Teachers,Locals, Railroad, and other Socialist entities) brokered deals to include Medical Insurance as part of their compensations.

That's when Medical Service providers responded with discounted charges of practice to those invoices being paid by the Insurance entity.

Around this time Employers started to use the rouse to attract better employees by offering Insurance instead of more actual wages. This is because, truth be told, Insurance is worth less than actual money. Otherwise, Employers would have offered increased wages.

Until the 60s, most people paid out of pocket for a Doctors visit, as well as Hospital stays. About 65% of the population did this. That's because they were paying from their own pocket, thus the Free Enterprise System was keeping costs down.

The more companies that added Health Insurance to their compensation offers, the higher medical costs would go.
People did not “choose” the product.
Like Obamacare, it was shoved down their throats.

As the Socialist ponzi scheme...er I mean Insurance, progressed, Medical Costs started to sky rocket because once the bills are being paid by Other People's Money (OPM) then no one cares how much their ailment costs to fix.

“It's evident that you, in addition to being an FR neophyte, are more motivated at maintaining your argument through the use of special and idiosyncratic definitions than anything else”.

Well it's true, I am an FR neophyte. I started to post here very recently. I am a conservative and I whole heartily believe that exchanging ideas with one another just may result in some tangible and positive results.

I am not simply maintaining an argument on senseless grounds, rather I am trying to influence some about allowing the socialist groups to define the language of the debate.

There is nothing wrong with our Health Care. Insurance may have benefits, but since that 1940s it has always been a tool of the Unions.

In fact the whole concept of others sharing the costs to pay another’s bill is Communist in nature.

As for these “special and idiosyncratic definitions” are concerned, they are what's known as reality, also called Truth.

I really don't understand your personal attacks in your responses. I do understand having passion in one’s views and it is something I respect irregardless of if we agree on something or not.