Insurance Companies Don't Care

Why do people blame the ones who obey the laws and regulations? Why can't you see it's the ones who make the laws and regulations that made the mess in the first place?
 
The government isn't attempting to provide health insurance for me because they love me. So it must be some type of self-interest on the part of Congressional Democrats. Sort of leaves money and power doesn't it?
 
Doesn't anyone think its odd to demand that all motives for providing for others (in this case providing health care) to be a genuine feeling of caring and not of self-interest (which happens to be the profit motive of insurance companies). Its as if people expect our nation to be one giant single family where all acts of providing for others must be done without any self-interested motives as we would expect any member of our family to act with.

What I am saying it is the same thinking that created fascist states in Europe...

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"
Hitler...National Socialism...Hello...McFly...
 
The government isn't attempting to provide health insurance for me because they love me. So it must be some type of self-interest on the part of Congressional Democrats. Sort of leaves money and power doesn't it?

I really believe that people on the left see a nation as a family, a community, or a village (hillary clinton's "it takes a village") where everyone is expected to "care" for one another like a village, family, or a community would do but the problem with this is that you create instance dictatorships where that state becomes community leader, village elder, or parent that has a right to make decisions over the village, community, and family.

This level of unity creates totalitarian societies instantly. I'm not saying that people on the left are evil NAZIs but you there does seem to be a will to sacrifice our own individual freedom for our own good just like a parent would do for a child or for what a village elder might deem good for the village.
 
No, the mandates are only a small issue. There is no incentive to control costs, so costs spiral out of control.
Why will the "government option" be any better?

Costs out of control?

The post office will come to my house pick up a letter and deliver it to my brothers house in California within a week for 44 cents

I would not deliver a letter to the other side of town for 44 cents

Post office is a model of efficiency

Postal rate for one ounce 11/1981 20 cents.
If efficiency was the goal wouldn't they develop ways to electronically send it between offices? There are more efficient ways to send packages. It is illegal to compete against the post office for mail, is that the model of efficiency you recommend?

Huh? FedEX, UPS, trucking companies, private mail couriers all deliver packages AND letters. And of course you have E-mail. Those are all strong competitors of the USPS.
 
What the hell is wrong with you people?

Can't you see that Only Nancy cares about you?

pelosi-nancy.jpg


If you don't believe it, she'll show some tough love an put you in jail!

That's actually a pretty good pic of her. She's aged tremendously since she took over as Speaker. I know this will sound catty, especially coming from someone who doesn't appreciate it when people rag on other people's looks, but when she came out in that red knit dress to announce passage of her health care bill, I was tempted to call Tracy and Clinton at "What Not to Wear." I mean really, Nancy: For someone who usually dresses to the nines in expensive clothes, that thing screamed. Plus, were you braless???? As Tracy & Clinton would say, "Ya gotta get the girls up where they belong, woman!"
 
The government isn't attempting to provide health insurance for me because they love me. So it must be some type of self-interest on the part of Congressional Democrats. Sort of leaves money and power doesn't it?

I really believe that people on the left see a nation as a family, a community, or a village (hillary clinton's "it takes a village") where everyone is expected to "care" for one another like a village, family, or a community would do but the problem with this is that you create instance dictatorships where that state becomes community leader, village elder, or parent that has a right to make decisions over the village, community, and family.

This level of unity creates totalitarian societies instantly. I'm not saying that people on the left are evil NAZIs but you there does seem to be a will to sacrifice our own individual freedom for our own good just like a parent would do for a child or for what a village elder might deem good for the village.

You should care. Not because anyone is trying to pull a kumbya, but because of the ripple effect on YOU based on what OTHERS endure. Slightly off topic, but "welfare" is a perfect example. The fact that a lot of money is spent on a segment of society you probably couldn't give a shit about and that makes you angry, I'm guessing. Likewise, in the wake of the attacks of 911 and renewed patriotism among all Americans, we were therefore expected not to blink over the enormous amount of money it would cost to fight two wars. Many hated that, although they were (and are) patriotic Americans.

Last thought, a conversation such as this one is basically good until you start invoking "Nazism" into it, which has the effect of destroying your credibility. You can make your point without all the hypothetical drama.
 
This is the main argument that I hear from so many liberals about anything that a business does or any person does and implies that anyone person must do things out of some egaltarian spirit of the community but what community are they speaking of. They can't be speaking community in the sense of private individuals interacting with each other like at a church, town meeting, dance hall, or anything like that but in a grand national scale where individuals who have never met each other must care about each other. Which is why the demand that all motives for all things be based on a genuine feeling that they are being caring for the members of the national community which happens to be all citizens within a nation instead of something that is formed by individuals interacting with each other.

This idea of building a national community was the tenant of National Socialism. Look at what Hitler wrote:

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"

What he is saying is that our sense of community extends beyond our family but through the state and the nation that it has power over. Similar things were said by Mussilini and many progressives in America so I wonder when I hear of the complaint that they are doing it for themselves or don't care do they expect our sense of familial caring extend to every citizen in the nation as many national socialist advoacated for?
By your logic, because China is the Peoples Republic of China, all republicans are Communist.
 
This is the main argument that I hear from so many liberals about anything that a business does or any person does and implies that anyone person must do things out of some egaltarian spirit of the community but what community are they speaking of. They can't be speaking community in the sense of private individuals interacting with each other like at a church, town meeting, dance hall, or anything like that but in a grand national scale where individuals who have never met each other must care about each other. Which is why the demand that all motives for all things be based on a genuine feeling that they are being caring for the members of the national community which happens to be all citizens within a nation instead of something that is formed by individuals interacting with each other.

This idea of building a national community was the tenant of National Socialism. Look at what Hitler wrote:

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"

What he is saying is that our sense of community extends beyond our family but through the state and the nation that it has power over. Similar things were said by Mussilini and many progressives in America so I wonder when I hear of the complaint that they are doing it for themselves or don't care do they expect our sense of familial caring extend to every citizen in the nation as many national socialist advoacated for?
By your logic, because China is the Peoples Republic of China, all republicans are Communist.
 
The government isn't attempting to provide health insurance for me because they love me. So it must be some type of self-interest on the part of Congressional Democrats. Sort of leaves money and power doesn't it?

I really believe that people on the left see a nation as a family, a community, or a village (hillary clinton's "it takes a village") where everyone is expected to "care" for one another like a village, family, or a community would do but the problem with this is that you create instance dictatorships where that state becomes community leader, village elder, or parent that has a right to make decisions over the village, community, and family.

This level of unity creates totalitarian societies instantly. I'm not saying that people on the left are evil NAZIs but you there does seem to be a will to sacrifice our own individual freedom for our own good just like a parent would do for a child or for what a village elder might deem good for the village.

You should care. Not because anyone is trying to pull a kumbya, but because of the ripple effect on YOU based on what OTHERS endure. Slightly off topic, but "welfare" is a perfect example. The fact that a lot of money is spent on a segment of society you probably couldn't give a shit about and that makes you angry, I'm guessing. Likewise, in the wake of the attacks of 911 and renewed patriotism among all Americans, we were therefore expected not to blink over the enormous amount of money it would cost to fight two wars. Many hated that, although they were (and are) patriotic Americans.

Last thought, a conversation such as this one is basically good until you start invoking "Nazism" into it, which has the effect of destroying your credibility. You can make your point without all the hypothetical drama.

I'm saying expecting private citizens who don't know or care about each other to provide for others needs because they are suppose to "care" is assuming that we are a giant family (or tribe )where each member is expected to take care of the other. This is not how normal society's operate and quite frankly you go to every single socialist from Hitler, Stalin, and Teddy Rosevelt (yes he was communist and a republican) and find similar things said about how they thought a nation's society should operate.

I'm sorry but we are not a single community. In fact, 99.9999999% of my fellow Americans I don't know from jack and while we may share a single nation in common we are not a part of a national super-family so I'm not morally obligated to help anyone outside of my own community unless I choose to. The only thing that being a part of the same nation means is that we follow the same laws and legal authority that creates them and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
This is the odd thing about insurance most people do not get, they care more about you than you do, they are betting that you will not get sick, you are betting against yourself, you are placing a bet that you will get sick.

That is what insurance is.

So who is better to place a bet with you? That you will get sick, other than the government, an agency that will bet with you if it is against both your and their self interest?

Think about that.
 
This is the main argument that I hear from so many liberals about anything that a business does or any person does and implies that anyone person must do things out of some egaltarian spirit of the community but what community are they speaking of. They can't be speaking community in the sense of private individuals interacting with each other like at a church, town meeting, dance hall, or anything like that but in a grand national scale where individuals who have never met each other must care about each other. Which is why the demand that all motives for all things be based on a genuine feeling that they are being caring for the members of the national community which happens to be all citizens within a nation instead of something that is formed by individuals interacting with each other.

This idea of building a national community was the tenant of National Socialism. Look at what Hitler wrote:

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"

What he is saying is that our sense of community extends beyond our family but through the state and the nation that it has power over. Similar things were said by Mussilini and many progressives in America so I wonder when I hear of the complaint that they are doing it for themselves or don't care do they expect our sense of familial caring extend to every citizen in the nation as many national socialist advoacated for?

I'll bet you've got a "Support our Troops" bumper sticker o your car, don't you?

Do you KNOW every trooper you support?

No?

Then really, what the fuck are you talking about?
 
I really believe that people on the left see a nation as a family, a community, or a village (hillary clinton's "it takes a village") where everyone is expected to "care" for one another like a village, family, or a community would do but the problem with this is that you create instance dictatorships where that state becomes community leader, village elder, or parent that has a right to make decisions over the village, community, and family.

This level of unity creates totalitarian societies instantly. I'm not saying that people on the left are evil NAZIs but you there does seem to be a will to sacrifice our own individual freedom for our own good just like a parent would do for a child or for what a village elder might deem good for the village.

You should care. Not because anyone is trying to pull a kumbya, but because of the ripple effect on YOU based on what OTHERS endure. Slightly off topic, but "welfare" is a perfect example. The fact that a lot of money is spent on a segment of society you probably couldn't give a shit about and that makes you angry, I'm guessing. Likewise, in the wake of the attacks of 911 and renewed patriotism among all Americans, we were therefore expected not to blink over the enormous amount of money it would cost to fight two wars. Many hated that, although they were (and are) patriotic Americans.

Last thought, a conversation such as this one is basically good until you start invoking "Nazism" into it, which has the effect of destroying your credibility. You can make your point without all the hypothetical drama.

I'm saying expecting private citizens who don't know or care about each other to provide for others needs because they are suppose to "care" is assuming that we are a giant family (or tribe )where each member is expected to take care of the other. This is not how normal society's operate and quite frankly you go to every single socialist from Hitler, Stalin, and Teddy Rosevelt (yes he was communist and a republican) and find similar things said about how they thought a nation's society should operate.

I'm sorry but we are not a single community. In fact, 99.9999999% of my fellow Americans I don't know from jack and while we may share a single nation in common we are not a part of a national super-family so I'm not morally obligated to help anyone outside of my own community unless I choose to. The only thing that being a part of the same nation means is that we follow the same laws and legal authority that creates them and nothing more.

Yes, it is. What you describe is an abnormal society and not one envisioned by the Constitution. What do you think the framers had in mind when they began that document with WE THE PEOPLE?
 
This is the odd thing about insurance most people do not get, they care more about you than you do, they are betting that you will not get sick, you are betting against yourself, you are placing a bet that you will get sick.

That is what insurance is.

So who is better to place a bet with you? That you will get sick, other than the government, an agency that will bet with you if it is against both your and their self interest?

Think about that.

The flaw in that logic is that insurance companies hate to lose, and they spend an enormous amount of effort making sure that they don't, which is why we're even having this huge national conversation in the first place.
 
Last edited:
This is the odd thing about insurance most people do not get, they care more about you than you do, they are betting that you will not get sick, you are betting against yourself, you are placing a bet that you will get sick.

That is what insurance is.

So who is better to place a bet with you? That you will get sick, other than the government, an agency that will bet with you if it is against both your and their self interest?

Think about that.

The flaw in that logic is that insurance companies hate to lose, and they spend an enormous amount of effort making sure that they don't, which is why we're even having this huge national conversation in the first place.

So insurance companies go around and make people well, guaranteeing that they win?
If thats the case I want more insurance companies around.
 
You should care. Not because anyone is trying to pull a kumbya, but because of the ripple effect on YOU based on what OTHERS endure. Slightly off topic, but "welfare" is a perfect example. The fact that a lot of money is spent on a segment of society you probably couldn't give a shit about and that makes you angry, I'm guessing. Likewise, in the wake of the attacks of 911 and renewed patriotism among all Americans, we were therefore expected not to blink over the enormous amount of money it would cost to fight two wars. Many hated that, although they were (and are) patriotic Americans.

Last thought, a conversation such as this one is basically good until you start invoking "Nazism" into it, which has the effect of destroying your credibility. You can make your point without all the hypothetical drama.

I'm saying expecting private citizens who don't know or care about each other to provide for others needs because they are suppose to "care" is assuming that we are a giant family (or tribe )where each member is expected to take care of the other. This is not how normal society's operate and quite frankly you go to every single socialist from Hitler, Stalin, and Teddy Rosevelt (yes he was communist and a republican) and find similar things said about how they thought a nation's society should operate.

I'm sorry but we are not a single community. In fact, 99.9999999% of my fellow Americans I don't know from jack and while we may share a single nation in common we are not a part of a national super-family so I'm not morally obligated to help anyone outside of my own community unless I choose to. The only thing that being a part of the same nation means is that we follow the same laws and legal authority that creates them and nothing more.

Yes, it is. What you describe is an abnormal society and not one envisioned by the Constitution. What do you think the framers had in mind when they began that document with WE THE PEOPLE?

It meant that the people of the country were coming together to form a nation of laws that they want to live under. People of any nation are not obligated to care for each other because that is a choice people make. The people I choose to care about is a choice I make and there will be many I may not decide to bring into my family of caring but they are still obligated to follow the same laws that I do. This is what a nation is.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top