The reason life insurance is so cheap is because it's insuring only one thing. Your death.
Yes, and a death is a simple claim but certain to make. The only uncertainty is when will death occur? Health insurance claims are somewhat more complex but unlike death, uncertain. But they are both actuarially calculable. My point is the health insurance rates would be much lower had the US gvt been less interfering. I can recall a monthly premium of $15.00 per month for a primary and a dependent in 1966 for a $500 deductible on a group plan. The fact that there is nothing in the present latest interference by gvt in health insurance about tort reform suggests the implication that the tort lawyer bar owns one of the political parties.
But by cheap for Life Insurance, I mean the low price by a (here un-named) company Rated A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best: a policy for a $100,000 death benefit, 20 year level term, for a 68 year old male is just $170 per month.
Extend that out: 170 x 12 months annually x 20 years equals $40,800. They are betting that this 68 year old man will live to age 88. Once they enter into the "contract" it is binding for them but not for the insured; They cannot cancel, but the insured can.
Had the US government gotten as involved in life insurance as it did in health insurance the price of life insurance would have risen to a point of being priced out of affordability by many more people than it is.
There you go again, not only assuming but also reinforcing my contention about your love affair with Beck. What you posted proves nothing. Now, explain exactly how giving control of healthcare to the government will lower the costs? Show your work, don't just post a link again.
