Political Crossfire Forums

$orideals · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 113

To interact in society today it is becoming almost impossible to operate without debt or insurance payments.

Does anyone see something dangerous about this?

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:

I agree $orideals, and it pisses me the hell off. Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5521 Location: Dreamland, NC

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: I agree $orideals, and it pisses me the hell off. Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.

Of course you have the choice to avoid it. If a person chooses to take a risk by putting themselves in debt let them. Im glad business influences my life. 8:)

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject:

politicalmojo wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: I agree $orideals, and it pisses me the hell off. Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.

Of course you have the choice to avoid it. If a person chooses to take a risk by putting themselves in debt let them. Im glad business influences my life. 8:)

Yes of course you have a choice to avoid it, just like you have a choice to murder. There are cases in which not having insurance is illegal, and thus, not a reasonable choice to make and expect to be safe from having your liberty taken. So this choice, is not really a choice at all.

And why are you glad business influences your life?

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5521 Location: Dreamland, NC

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: I agree $orideals, and it pisses me the hell off. Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.

Of course you have the choice to avoid it. If a person chooses to take a risk by putting themselves in debt let them. Im glad business influences my life. 8:)

Yes of course you have a choice to avoid it, just like you have a choice to murder. There are cases in which not having insurance is illegal, and thus, not a reasonable choice to make and expect to be safe from having your liberty taken. So this choice, is not really a choice at all.

And why are you glad business influences your life?

Because it gives me things in which no country has ever had the priviledge of having. Business Ingenuity has advanced my standard of living such that I have amenities that no other civilization has ever dreamed of having. America was founded on the principle of money. Whether it was directly stated or not is another discussion. Business has helped America way more than it has hurt America.

Skiazo · Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject:

politicalmojo wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: I agree $orideals, and it pisses me the hell off. Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.

Of course you have the choice to avoid it. If a person chooses to take a risk by putting themselves in debt let them. Im glad business influences my life. 8:)

Yes of course you have a choice to avoid it, just like you have a choice to murder. There are cases in which not having insurance is illegal, and thus, not a reasonable choice to make and expect to be safe from having your liberty taken. So this choice, is not really a choice at all.

And why are you glad business influences your life?

Because it gives me things in which no country has ever had the priviledge of having. Business Ingenuity has advanced my standard of living such that I have amenities that no other civilization has ever dreamed of having. America was founded on the principle of money. Whether it was directly stated or not is another discussion. Business has helped America way more than it has hurt America.

I will agree that business is a good thing, however, I fail to see how mandatory insurance is. Anything that is "illegal to not purchase" has to be a bad thing.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

By exploiting the few, who have failed to meet their financial responsibilities, businesses have lobbied to replace the rights and choices of individuals with requirements and laws. So now, even if you pay every bill, drive in only the best of manner, and live where there is virtually no chance of natural disaster, flood, or fire, you pay just about as much for people in the opposite. From the ground up, this just isn't right.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:07 am Post subject:

Johannes wrote: By exploiting the few, who have failed to meet their financial responsibilities, businesses have lobbied to replace the rights and choices of individuals with requirements and laws. So now, even if you pay every bill, drive in only the best of manner, and live where there is virtually no chance of natural disaster, flood, or fire, you pay just about as much for people in the opposite. From the ground up, this just isn't right.

Agreed.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

However, to play devil's advocate, how do we get those few who are unreliable members of society, financially, to get in line.? Can any of you suggest a better way to treat the public? At least the system treats everyone equal, thus a statute that America is based on. Therefore, why do American's not value the treatment of insurance companies?

Anyone else remember Forbes?

DarkMerlin · Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject:

There is a neat little science fiction film called "Code 46" that deals with this issue somewhat, if I remember correctly. I would recommend it.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

Johannes wrote: Can any of you suggest a better way to treat the public? At least the system treats everyone equal, thus a statute that America is based on.

I'm quite serious. Can anyone suggest something better?

George W Bush · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject:

ok, heres a suggestion:
NON PROFIT insurance.
correct me if i'm wrong, but Insurance companies are prosperous.
what if the people created insurance company that based premiums on established trends.
Then, when insurance payments have not met established expectations, policyholders get money returned in form of lower premiums and/or dividends.
but this sounds like its been done.
ok, we'll make it a charter and call it 'The Peoples Insurance'
whose in?

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

I dig it. Count me in. The company would have to be tightly regulated by the clients/stockholders of the company to prevent the embezzlement of funds.

RFlowers · Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 35

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: ... Just more influence business has on our lives, and this time, we dont' realistically have the choice, in many cases, to avoid it.
Mandatory insurance is usually the influence of government, not business. Right?

George W Bush wrote: ok, heres a suggestion:
NON PROFIT insurance.
correct me if i'm wrong, but Insurance companies are prosperous.

They better be prosperous, and stockpile lots of money for a 'Katrina day.'

George W Bush wrote:
what if the people created insurance company that based premiums on established trends.
Then, when insurance payments have not met established expectations, policyholders get money returned in form of lower premiums and/or dividends.
but this sounds like its been done.
ok, we'll make it a charter and call it 'The Peoples Insurance'
whose in?

Sounds good, but there're whole lotta devils in those details. Since insurance covers unforseen events, this insurance company would have to make sure that the dividends or payment shortfall was not harmful to their ability to cover claims. For example, (and these are just round numbers with no relation to reality), say it was determined that to cover most claims, the company would need 1 million dollars in reserve. After payments had put the company over the top, payments could be reduced and some dividends could actually start going out. But they would rue the day that some disaster cost them $2 million!

It's not a bad idea, though, and a couple of insurance 'alternatives' are in existence. These are primarily used for health insurance.

The first is kind of a 'private' insurance, usually used by large church congregations. I think it's a combination of dues and a call to charity when one of the members actually needs it. Clearly, this is better for smaller groups where the members have a high level of trust.

The second is something you can actually participate in (see a financial advisor), and that's a Health Savings Account. You pay a premium every month, but some portion goes to catastrophic health insurance (lower payment, huge deductible), and the rest goes into a special account to be used only for your health care needs. If you stay healthy long enough in the program, your need for actual insurance lessens as your savings is built up. The nice thing is, this is your money, and if you make it to old age in relatively good health, you can use it to supplement retirement, or whatever.

Please keep in mind that I only have casual knowledge of the concepts above, so if you're interested, further research is recommended.

The Good Doctor · Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 342

Insurance isn't any indicator of a lack of solvency.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

$orideals wrote: To interact in society today it is becoming almost impossible to operate without debt or insurance payments.

Does anyone see something dangerous about this?

yes, but i can guarantee you that if insurance was not mandatory (which would be morally sound), the court cases and hand-outs would be never ending. coming from a governmental perspective, it's much more pragmatic to just force people to buy into insurance than to deal with the alternative(s).

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: ok, heres a suggestion:
NON PROFIT insurance.

So how do we decide which insurance company gets to grow and expand and which one fails? Or do we just have one insurance company, that's mandatory, and could be better called the socialist state....