Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArellaNova
I think your case is a perfect example of why there is a demand for the support of the private insurance industry.
Government let you down. Government wants to provide for everyone, but it can't. The insurance industry is in the business of risk management. Their livelyhood depends upon providing you an adequate service.
For example. I am in the same boat. Working part time and going to school part time. I can't afford massive health care coverage either, but I sacrafice some shopping, and possable vacationing to purchase my own minimum health care plan. Now I have to pay out the wazoo if I get an infection, but major emergencies -like cancer- are covered to a specific amount. I am buying assurance that for *some* drastic measures I wont go personally bankrupt.
|
*cough* *gag* what? Demand for the what? Who is demanding this besides the private insurance companies? How could a for-profit company better serve the medical needs of population than a non-profit system run by the people themselves? What you're arguing for is actually the status quo in the U.S. - the Republican medical plan - which includes MORE middlemen MORE bureaucracy and MORE people cut off from medical care than a universal state-run system.
Insurance companies' primary purpose is to serve their share holders, not provide medical care. Insurance companies can, and do quite often, themselves declare bankruptcy (a much less punative process than a personal bankruptcy) in which case you've lost your medical coverage and have to start anew with a different company.
I garauntee you Arella, if you have medical catastrophe your insurance will run out long before your need for medical care will. You'll find yourself in a position similiar to Pan's where you'd be better off not working, not contributing, and dropping out.
Ustwo-I love how you complain all the time about people abusing the social welfare systems, yet when someone like Pan refuses to do so he becomes a "martyr."