Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:00:31 -0700, said:
A quick check of Merriam Webster:
Main Entry:
health insurance
I think you've proved my point rather nicely. Health insurance now differs
so radically from what the term "insurance" has traditionally meant that it
has to have its own separate entry .
LOL. Right - a tradition starting over a HUNDRED years ago. Oh, I
suppose your convenient excision of
"Date:
1901"
was unintentional? OK, how about this;
Main Entry:
1in·sur·ance Listen to the pronunciation of 1insurance Listen to
the pronunciation of 1insurance
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈshu̇r-ən(t)s also ˈin-ˌ\
Function:
noun
Date:
1651
1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by
contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another
against ***loss*** by a ***specified contingency*** or peril c: the sum
for which something is insured emphasis added
Note - indemnification against loss (i.e. cost) due to ANY *specified*
(i.e. contractually defined) contingency. Sorry, but your artificially
narrow definition of "insurance" simply does not hold water. And your
semantic quibbling would be to what end exactly?
Would you be making as many visits
if somebody else wasn't picking up nearly all of the tab?
[snip]
LOL - again. Nice editing; leave in the question to imply that the
answer supports your position when, in fact, my answer was just the
opposite. I don' purport to represent the 'typical' insurance user, but
such editing is disingenuous at best.
Would your neighbor?
Doubtful. What's your point?
Ever see one o' them graphs with price on one axis and quantity on the other
axis, and an x in the upper right hand quadrant? See if you can piece it
together after thinking about one o' them there graphs.
Well DUH! What did you think "doubtful" implied? Bingo! You guessed
it, people tend to overuse/abuse 'free' services. Wow! I meant, rather
obviously I thought, "what's your point relative to the discussion at
hand"? I.e. since we've stipulated that the system as structured is
broken, this point is relevant how exactly?
Keith Hughes