"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:17:04 -0400, JimH wrote:

Public insurance translated means government run insurance.............no
thanks.

I'm presuming you're American (osudad) and have never had any experience
with public insurance, so I have to ask myself on what your rejection of
the idea is based.

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient. The one exception is the Post
Office.


Ideology? pfftt.... There are places in the world
where this works very well.


As I am sure there are places in the workld where it does not.


People get the coverage they want, at rates
they find acceptable AND profits go toward public services like schools,
roads, hospitals... What's not to like?

That's funny!



Why are you so bitter about insurance company's?

I've had long experience with private insurance.....no thanks. Rates and
policies are legalised theft and extortion.

They are in the business
of making a profit for their shareholders....

My point exactly, their primary reasons for being are not to meet the
needs of those paying for their services, but rather to increase profit.

Yep. And controled by the States and most importantly the public by simply
going to another provider when rates are out of line.

And they must also meet the needs of the customers.....otherwise the
customer goes elsewhere.



It just boggles my mind that so many cannot see the inherent
inappropriateness of this scenario.

and adjust rates accordingly
to attain that goal. Don't like what one company charges....find
another. There are plenty to go around.

And where I live you can't find a statistically significant difference
in premiums between any of the companies.

Where do you live?



Don't like the high rates you
pay because you live in hurricane alley.......then move.

Don't live in hurricane alley...top end of tornado alley. I shouldn't
have to even contemplate moving because the company I pay large $$ to
insure against potential loss, inflates rates to show profits more in line
with stock trader's "earnings expectations" than to cover actual losses
and still show a profit. Big difference there.

We are all paying for the hurricane damage to your boats, cars and
houses with our insurance premiums and with our taxes through government
subsidies and other government spending. I for one am damn tired of
doing so.

So pay up or move. Don't ask me to continue to subsidize you though.

now I understand, you're allright, but anyone who suffers a loss can go
pound salt.

No, anyone who chooses to live in a hurricane prone area needs to pay the
price for doing so. It is all about choice.


Nice. I don't get it. You along with
tens of millions of other premium payers will willingly keep coughing up
more and more $$ for less and less coverage, all the while blaming the
increasing cost of premiums on claimants --which isn't at all the main
cause-- and yet never consider for a moment that there might be a better
insurance solution that meets the insurance customer's needs first.
Absolutely bizarre.


You know absolutely nothing about insurance. Your last statement proved it.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white...
no Jim, I'm not an American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had
experience with both public and private insurance, and I can tell you from
experience that the private system is not to be preferred. You keep
paying your premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.

"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white...
no Jim, I'm not an American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had
experience with both public and private insurance, and I can tell you from
experience that the private system is not to be preferred. You keep
paying your premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.


Socialist? Me thinks so. ;-)

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white...
no Jim, I'm not an American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had
experience with both public and private insurance, and I can tell you from
experience that the private system is not to be preferred. You keep
paying your premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.


Socialist? Me thinks so. ;-)


So what's wrong with that if it works?

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:52:00 -0400, Gogarty wrote:

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white... no Jim, I'm not an
American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had experience with both
public and private insurance, and I can tell you from experience that
the private system is not to be preferred. You keep paying your
premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.


Socialist? Me thinks so. ;-)


So what's wrong with that if it works?

no no, you're missing it...
life is black and white
capitalism = inherently good
socialism = inherently bad
with us = not agin us
not with us = agin us
etc...

now isn't that simpler?

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:17:04 -0400, JimH wrote:

Public insurance translated means government run insurance.............no
thanks.

I'm presuming you're American (osudad) and have never had any experience
with public insurance, so I have to ask myself on what your rejection of
the idea is based.

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient. The one exception is the Post
Office.

A, The Post Office is a government corporation. It cannot cherry pick its
customers and must deliver everything to everywhere without profit incentive.
It is a service.

B. Social Security and Medicare are highly efficient. They are not bloated
bureaucracies. Indeed, most government is not bloated and inefficient.
Medicare's overhead is 2%. Private insurance companies have overhead of 15% to
20% while racking up huge profits for shareholders and obscene compensation
for officers while carefully picking their risks and then denying some 30& of
claims. Why do we owe the insurance companies a living?

C. To govern is to serve. Keep that in mind. Government is not a business and
cannot be run like a business. The business of business is profit, not the
well-being of the customers. That is the essential conflict of the insurance
business.