"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Insurance Companies: Scum-Sucking Bottom Feeders; and Socialist Health Care in Massachusetts

It is well known that health care in America, supposedly the richest country in the world, is not all it could be. I am for true free markets and free choices, not the mixed bag of interfering government (socialist) programs that now exist in the United States. Many people have complained about welfare to the poor, but have said little to nothing about the much more expensive welfare to corporations. Any time the government gives your tax dollars to anyone or anything, individual or corporation, that is welfare. I'm am totally against it. That sort of government interference mucks up a free market so that, in fact, there is no free market.

But on to insurance, especially health insurance. First of all, the original intent of insurance was for a person to protect himself or herself against possible losses. If automobile insurance was allowed to run that way today, then all you would have to do is insure yourself against the possibility of accidents, whether you caused them or someone else did. That way, you would be covered for any harm caused to you by another, or any harm you might cause to yourself by your own actions. If you did not have insurance, but I did, and we had an accident, no matter whose fault, you would be S.O.L. but I would be "financially" protected. Of course, the government has interfered and won't allow the simple purpose of insurance to exist, so we have to buy insurance to cover the harm we might cause to others. Strange, I thought that was what the courts were for. (Pure financial protection for self would probably be much less expensive and, therefore, within the reach of every automobile owner.)

When it comes to health insurance, with 44 or 45 million people in the United States who can't afford it, the State of Massachusetts has taken a giant step towards complete socialism--which, as we can see in Russia and China, really doesn't work. (No Mildred, those countries weren't communist. Communism is a myth. It doesn't work in practise even more than socialism.) So, in Massachusetts you are now mandated by law to buy health insurance. The reasoning is that there were 550,000 people who were being treated medically purely at the taxpayers' expense. (But if taxes weren't so high, maybe those people could have afforded insurance. Remember, the more you have the government do for you, the more it costs. Because the government doesn't make money, it takes money . . . and generally uses it very inefficiently.)

I'm not against health insurance per se. Of course not. Medicine and medical procedures have become so complicated and expensive that the average person cannot afford to pay for them--especially when you consider that doctors and hospitals take advantage of their special positions in the community. I mean, if you need medical help, where else are you going to go? I am also not very fond of insurance companies. I call them "scum-sucking bottom feeders". They want to take your monthly premium, but they sure as hell don't want to pay out if you need to use the insurance. And they will go to all sorts of tricks to keep from paying your medical bills. (See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/20186938/)

So what can be done about the need for health insurance. Well, as long as the government is going to take our tax dollars, then they should be put to good use, not wasted, like in the ludicrous and so-called "war on drugs." (Some sources claim that up to 100 billion dollars a year are being spent on the WOD by local, state, and federal agencies.) That money could be used to set up a voluntary and inexpensive insurance program for those who can't afford one or for those whose employers don't provide an adequate one. And, remember, the more people signed on to a group policy the cheaper the insurance premiums. The scum-sucking bottom feeders play the odds. (And, truth be told, all companies need to make a profit in order to stay in business . . . but excessive profits strains ones credulity.)

So, with at least 44 million possible customers on one group policy, we should be able to get pretty low monthly rates. Also, it should be adjusted to income levels. Those at poverty level or below, only paying 10% of the monthly premium. Those above poverty level paying anywhere from 15% to 100%, or having the option to contract with a privately owned insurance company. Since the government is already taking the tax dollars for the WOD, they could simply end that stupid mess (remember, 90 million drinkers and 45 million smokers cause a whole lot more health problems, violence and crime that the 20 million drug users--of which about 15 million are pot smokers) and switch the 100 billion dollars over to the Voluntary National Health Insurance Corporation . . . a semi-private insurance company.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm not supposed to like socialism in any form, and by proposing the VNHI Corporation, I am proposing adding to our government's socialist agenda. At the same time, however, I am proposing to end a pernicious program that actually does much more harm than good, both to individuals and society. And, as long as the mind-set of Americans is such that they think the government, not themselves, will save them, then I would rather the money from taxes be used for a program that has the potential to actually do some good for the people who need it most.

No comments: