Hair prosthesis will help you if you get cancer, you selfish whiner.

Single payer is all we need.

Anything less is just whoring for the insurance company share holders.

Insurance companies can't do anything that a government program can't do, except cost more and deny people coverage when they need it most.

Good thing she was showing zero cleavage, otherwise I wouldn't have heard the important message.

Lol the whole point of those government mandates is so that minorities can still get "reasonable" health coverage the fact is if you let companies do what they wanted they would only insure people who were very unlikely to get sick , or only likely to get sick in cheep ways.

YOU HAVE TO BE THINK/IGNORANT/UNEDUCATED TO THINK THAT UNREGULATED COMPANIES ARE THE BEST WAY TO DO HEALTH INSURANCE/ HEALTH COVERAGE THAT WOULD BENEFITS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.

"...nor am I looking to get pregnant any time soon."

Dammit!

Because if people aren't force to buy insurance for something, the insurance companies wont offer that kind of insurance because they dont have enough money in the pool. So if you do end up getting one of these ailments you just mentioned, despite having insurance, you'd be fucked cuz that wouldn't be covered.

It's just like here my local town, there's no such thing as 'flood-insurance', because nobody buys it, therefore it isn't offered by companies.

It's cute how she thinks her insurance should be all about her. Yes, I'm sure her blonde hair and barely-above-average demeanor is going to be enough to get the insurance company to customize a perfectly matched plan for her at no additional expense.

Really, she should be happy if they just cover her when she needs it, because insurance companies exist to do everything in their power to find ways not to.

egocentric as hell. just because you don't need it yourself doesn't mean anyone else needs it. and sooner or later it could be you who's in need of some treatment you never thought you would need. so you're not planning to get xyz in your lifetime and therefore decide not to pay for it. as soon as nature crosses your way and you get what you didn't plan to get you'll stand there in your little video and DEMAND socialized healthcare.

Funny how far social liberals go to find supposedly intrinsic flaws in the insurance "logic".

Insurance companies aren't just blindly motivated to *save* every penny by offering the least possible insurance, they also want to *make* money by offering the most insurance on what people actually fear might happen.

If not enough people are willing to pay to be insured against something, it's something they're not worried about insuring. Should they be worried?? Well gee, who am I and who are YOU to judge? That's up to them. If people decide not to pay for something, and it happens, that's the price they pay for assuming the risk. Nobody ever said life is or should be without risks.

The main reason you pay insurance is not to help other people, it was never intended to be charity. You do it to help *yourself*, it is admittedly very selfish, there's nothing wrong with that.

When insurance helps others, that's just a net result of all the people contributing out of their self-interest for safety and fear (or calculated risk) over unlikely but possible events.

What is risky? What is safe? It's not wise to let politicians decide, society is a much better and efficient judge of what they should or shouldn't be insured against.

^ Society is a much better and efficient judge? That's a huge, unproved assumption. And what is a democracy, if not a system of rules and nets put in place by a society? (Or, at least, it is supposed to be)

If anything, society has a lot of historical marks against it, in terms of competence of any sort.

I'm not saying government is the perfect answer for everything, but I'm sick of hearing "politicians can't do it, it's best to let people decide for themselves." That's pretty naive. There is a balance.

^ Well, who is a better judge when it comes to using the money you earned? You, or someone who takes that money from you effortlessly?

If I handed you US$10,000 for free, no strings attached, would you value that money as much as US$10,000 you worked hard to earn? What if you accidentally lose that money somehow, would you feel as bad as if you lost the 10k you dedicated PRECIOUS TIME out of your life for?

I feel silly having to explain to you that government doesn't value your money as much as you do. They'll waste even more of it if you want Washington to run the healthcare insurance business.

It's pretty naive to assume that politicians are somehow endowed with some special knowledge or skill that allows them to be more productive to society with the effortless sum of a lot of other people's money than the individual spendings every person would have done with their own money otherwise.

If that were the case, the US government wouldn't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit, it would have a surplus, like a profitable business.

>> ^gtjwkq:
If that were the case, the US government wouldn't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit, it would have a surplus, like a profitable business.


Please, are you serious?, how old are you? 5 - 6

Do you know how much surplus was when President Clinton left the office, do you?
or do you remember how much gasolin cost on those days?

it is like a business (for the people), but unfortunatelly some dumb asses don know how to run it

and for the girl on the video, I hope you know how to blow or your mouth is just a waste
is like buying a car insurance, are you going to buy it until you crash?, let me know if any company will sell it like that, damm

Uhhh, so, yeah... Truthfully, there are so many holes in this logic. On the surface it all sounds plausible, but over the years the whole "those who make their own money will intrinsically be more adept at managing it" argument has been obliterated. There's too many unsupported assertions within that claim. It assumes far too much: competence, honesty, fairness, etc, etc, etc...

Trust me, though, I'm not arguing that government is always the perfect solution. Ours certainly isn't. But the pure libertarian dream isn't feasible either. There are places where government belongs and makes sense. The old school 80s Reaganomics ideas are obsolete and proven so. The arguments and beliefs spawned from cold war reactionarism are simply not applicable. We are not well served by making statements that are just assumed true within our own groups. It reminds me of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

We also aren't well served by distracting scenarios that propose generalities that appear to be reasonable, but on deeper inspection contain little depth in their validity... Such rhetorical sleight of hand is either misguided or dishonest.

IMO, people should try to calm down for a moment and maintain skepticism of EVERYTHING and fully think through their arguments/beliefs... That includes me - and I try very hard to do so. Of course, this is all fairly optimistic to hope for.

>> ^braindonut:
On the surface it all sounds plausible, but over the years the whole "those who make their own money will intrinsically be more adept at managing it" argument has been obliterated.

Why?

There are places where government belongs and makes sense.

I agree. We probably disagree on the actual places, though.