I do not understand this sudden fixation on the notion that people might use a handgun to commit suicide. You'd rather they jumped in front of the Metro?

It's actually a really good point. I was just talking about this the other day with a friend, how, if I get Alzheimer's, I need to kill myself before my brain goes. Of course, I'd do it with a bottle of pills. I don't understand how people can blow their brains out.

Also, I think it's wrong to keep people who are vegetables alive on life support at great cost. This benefits nobody except the nursing home where they are receiving "care."

Look at how successfully the Brits have done it (snort). Now they're looking to ban sharp kitchen knives since guns aren't readily available for offing each other. Honestly, if you truly want to kill someone, you'll find a way. I have some wicked gardening tools, and grilling forks that belong in the next SAW movie. Or I could simply bludgeon someone to death with this very laptop. It's older and therefore sturdy enough to hold up on impact after impact.

Just an observation, not to go all dark and oogy on the subject.

Yeah, and Breyer was the genius whose opinion in the Carhart case (about partial birth abortion) said that partial birth abortion should be illegal because some woman, somewhere, someday, might regret her decision, therefore every woman is incapable of deciding for herself. Of course, the Carhart opinion was so crappily and vaguely written, it's not even clear whether or not the procedure can be used to remove a dead fetus from a woman (often, a much safer option that waiting to induce labor so she can deliver a dead baby, exposing her to septicemia and other nasty complications).

Vote for Obama, and you'll get more mush-minded justices like Breyer.

John Kay (broadcaster for the Yankees TV network) likes to use a term: "Fallacy of the pre-determined outcome" - basically meaning that you can't presume that an event that failed to occur should have occurred.

Breyer is arguing for a pre-emptive solution to a problem that may never materialize.

As far as seatbelt and helmet laws go, you should be allowed to be as big a dumbshit as you please, as long as I don't have to pay for you after you crash your donorcycle, etc.

It's like the error in a frequent libertarian position on open borders. You can't have open borders in a welfare state, per Milton Friedman, and this is a welfare state. (I'm not for open borders anyway, but an enforcement of immigration laws. And, P.S. anybody notice terrorists milling around in the world lately?)

You'd rather they jumped in front of the Metro?

And this is a serious pain, I can tell. I had to deal with three suicides in the metro. Twice, I was stuck in the damn train when it happened.

Suicide is a personal thing, just like defecating. You want to snuff your own life? Don't involve anybody else.

Toubrouk - Don't involve anybody else.

Make it look like an accident. The very fact of it being suicide involves everyone else, most especially family and friends.

If a resident has a hand in a home which s/he can use to prepare meals and clean up from dinner, launder clothing, tend housework or any of the other myriad taskings involved in maintaining a home...
Then s/he has a hand with which s/he he can pick up a firearm and commit the same irresponsible illegal acts that responsible law abiding citizens choose to not commit.
Solution: BAN HANDS!!!
(Hands can also be used to choke the living **** out of stupid people... which this society desperately needs fewer of)
Gunner Retired

Bravo Gunner! If we continue down this road, we'll find ourselves living in padded cells with nothing sharper in them than a tennis ball.

My own personal experience is that when you hear a prowler in your house, a loaded .38 revolver does wonders for your confidence in being able to deal with the situation.

AMEN GUNNER!!!

As to helmet (brainbucket) laws and motorcycles- I agree with Amy. You have the liberty to crack your melon wide open and hopefully become an organ donor, since you must not be using your brain anyway. I don't want to foot the bill for your care, especially if it's long term. The thing I DO have a problem with is the two states that don't require helmets for underage riders, Iowa and Illinois. How Darwinian.

To be honest, my husband and I both ride motorcycles, and our helmets cost almost as much as our bikes. Cheap bikes, expensive helmets. Some things you don't want to scrimp on.

(Juliana, don't forget boots. But I suspect you haven't.)

The handgun suicide angle appeared on CNN immediately after the DC handgun ban was lifted. This says two things:

1) CNN wants to sell blood.
2) This was the only thing left, and they know it.

Media has been called again and again for supporting liars, like Sarah Brady and Atlanta's police Chief Pennington.

The state is not required to protect you - see Warren v. DC - and then they remove your means to do so while telling you it's for your own good, while the revolving door lets the thug back out, and activists whine about people being in jail in the first place.

Do you know why desperate people use a gun to commit suicide? It works. Just like it works against an assailant when used intelligently.

But somebody can make more money off the prolonged suffering of people forced to endure a crime, or continuing their miserable life against their wishes.

To be honest, my husband and I both ride motorcycles, and our helmets cost almost as much as our bikes. Cheap bikes, expensive helmets. Some things you don't want to scrimp on.

Which means either you paid 6 grand for a helmet of 300 for a bike.

And if you don't maintain that bike (and a $300 bike probably needs a lot of maintenance), you'll definitely need that helmet.

> you'll definitely need
> that helmet.

...Safety tips from a man approaching middle age who has, we presume, protected himself, his loved ones, and his community from fiscal catastrophe by purchasing health insurance... (There's no way you could be so glib otherwise.)

Yes? No?

Beautiful.....

My "loved ones" to use your euphemism, cannot be legally enjoined to care for me. Nor can the state.

So stuff a sock in it.

And from some of the stories I've been hearing, I'm just as likely to get stuck paying cash for my care with insurance as without, so why cough up the extra 2500-5000 a year for the privilege?

> I'm just as likely to get stuck
> paying cash for my care with
> insurance as without, so why
> cough up...

The infantile hillbilly selfishness of that passage doesn't merely undercut whatever advice you might give to responsible sportswomen like Julianna; it voids any credentials you might present as a conservative observer. Conservatism, from gun laws to taxes to environmentalism, is all about earning liberty through responsibility. Amy writes about this all the time.

So I went to your blog (the bravado-drenched “applied indifference”). It was all about mp3 players and video games and electronic amusements. So it's not like the money's not there, you just enjoy spending it on other things.

> My "loved ones" to use your
> euphemism

What euphemism? Are you going to drop some inane, oxymoronic Bob Seger lyric on us or something? (I was born lonely, down by the riverside....)

> cannot be legally enjoined to
> care for me. Nor can the state.

That's phenomenally aggressive. You're saying “Don't worry that I'll sue you, because even if I did I'd lose.” Your fantasy of me-against-the-world is out of control. As you imagine lying impoverished in the hospital with weeping sores of disease moistening your bedsheets, you think the rest of us will be worried that at any moment, you'll snap to your feet and run to the courthouse to exercise some precious civil right. But we'll likely have other things on our mind.

Specifically, we're morally enjoined to pay for your care, whether we're legally required to or not. (See also: illegal immigrants.) Law demands that public hospitals take all comers. I've seen indigents die of cancer in first-rate Southern California hospitals, with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of costs simply absorbed.

Seriously, is that all? Have you insured your house against fire? Have you even insured your car?

This is just not a big deal. If the math is correct, you're going to attend your twentieth high school reunion this month. Do me a favor: ask the men and women you admired from those days whether or not they have insurance. If they whine about the cost, be sure and listen patiently... They're talking about you.

Well, for starters, I have no dependents. And my parents and brothers aren't going to be required by law to assume my debts. See, I prefer to use more specific terms than "loved ones", because that is too mushy a definition, and it potentially assumes relations that simply do not exist.

I'm required to insure my house against a whole host of things as a condition of my mortgage. However, that cost is about $500 per year. I'm also required to insure my automobile - and the largest portion of my bill is "uninsured motorist" coverage which strikes me as odd if it's compulsory - but even then, we're talking under a grand a year for over $150,000 in liability coverage and a very small deductible.

What you are morally enjoined to do is of no concern to me. I have money and valid debt instruments, and I can pay for care myself. The statistical likelihood of anything horrible happening to me just isn't worth paying over $200 a month for when I'm going to end up paying the bulk of routine medical care anyhow. Because of the stupid laws in this state and country, nobody is either willing or able (likely both) to sell me a policy that covers what I want - namely major medical emergency coverage - at a reasonable price. I figure that with my age, health, and risks, that ought not cost much more than $75-100 a month. Instead, I'm being directed to plans that cover things that will never affect me and cost at least twice as much. The whole thing is a scam to get me to pay for other people's lifestyle choices, and I resent it. If other people have to pay more because I refuse to support them, tough shit.

And the reunion was last November. I didn't attend because there's nobody that I'm even the remotest bit interested in speaking with.

"if a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence."

Yeah I read that quoted bit from Breyer last week and had to download the actual decision and read it again directly from the source.

Its the standard, "think of the children/women" response. A pure appeal to emotions because he's got nuthin left to argue the point. Is Breyer going to support stiffer (haha) sentences on crazy women who use steak knives to cut of their sleeping husband's wang and toss the bits into the yard? What about that gal in TN last year who spent no more than 9 months incarcerated after shooting her sleeping husband in the head with a shotgun. Oh, wait she apologized to him and told him she loved him as she yanked out the phone cord, grabbed the kids and headed out of state.-

As to the bike/helmet expense ratio and bike maintenance- we knew the bikes needed TLC. My hubby is an engineer with mad skillz in the mechanical department (nothing sexier, I say!) He does most of our car and bike maintenance since he'd prefer to know it's done right. His motivation is to consider the value of the passengers to him.

Also, I highly recommend the Harley Davidson Rider's Edge safety course- intensive instruction on how to get around while you're surrounded by drivers who are text messaging, yakking on the phone or slapping their kids in the back seat.

Thanks Radwaste- yes, the boots are there too. As are the reinforced gloves and the jackets with shoulder, elbow, lower lumbar, and upper spine protective inserts. Have been looking at Kevlar reinforced jeans ever since someone sent me an email of a guy who had both of his buttcheeks chewed to hamburger sliding down the highway.

Also within the context of precautions; fully insured to the hilt on the bikes, cars, house, and ourselves. Living wills on both, and primary and secondary guardians designated for our kids. Special needs trust in place for one of our kids. Contingency plans, backups and emergencies covered. Very stuffy and boring on paper, but I'd hate to be a burden to anyone, be it family or taxpayers.

Brian, review Julianna's comment carefully. Don't worry if you cry during this passage (it doesn't mean you're gay):

> I'd hate to be a burden
> to anyone, be it family
> or taxpayers.

Amazing what a little connectedness can do for a human being.

Crid, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you are the mother of all arrogant pricks. What is there to cry about there?

How am I a burden to you? Who else is there in my life to burden? All I've got for direct blood relatives is two parents, two brothers, a grandfather, and a couple uncles. And aside from the brothers, I'm far more likely to be kicking in for their care than the other way round.

Nobody can be compelled to care for me, nor can anyone compel me to seek care. So I don't see how I could become a burden to the taxpayers unless those same taxpayers sought a court order forcing it upon me - and the likelihood of that is vanishingly small - I'm neither important nor attractive enough.

The only way I would become a burden is if I sought care that I did not intend to pay for. We used to have a word for that. It used to be called larceny.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept of self insurance? You walk around thinking that being in debt is some horrible thing. It isn't. People will go 40 grand in the hole for a new car, but they won't take out a loan to mend a broken limb?

Why don't you just come right out and say it - you expect other people to willingly give of their hard earned wages so that you can get your health-care at a discount. That's all you're really saying when you insist that I buy insurance. You're saying "Brian, it's not fair that at 39 you're so healthy and you've not squandered tens of thousands of dollars in earnings so that I can have a bypass and not pay any more money for it".

Well, when I WAS traditionally employed, I was getting health insurance instead of 1,800 in cash every year. During that time (8 years) I went to the doctor probably 2 or 3 times. I went and had surgery on a hernia that really didn't need fixing just to get SOMETHING out of the system - and that only amounted to about 4 grand.

But I did partially finance the birth of some 5 babies, none of which I derived any amusement from.

Amazing what a little connectedness can do for a human being.

And what the fuck is this supposed to mean, anyhow?

Just some quick math for your ass.

I've been self-employed for a little over 6 years. Let us just assume that I would pay about $250 a month for health insurance over that timeframe.

During that time, I would have paid $20/mo instead of $100/mo for my allergy medication. I went to the doctor maybe twice. That's 13 grand out the window that I'll never see again.

Which just happens to be about the amount of money it took for me to buy this house.

So, should I still be renting a hovel in a shit neighborhood to satisfy your arrogant presumption of "connectedness"?

Check out Kaiser. If you're 44 in California, you can get a plan for $190 a month. If you are incapacitated, we will be forced to care for you, perhaps for decades. We don't like to pull the plug in this country. It cuts down on the money nursing homes can make for keeping you a human turnip alive in a bed, as my friend Marlowe Minnick was, most tragically. I'm surprised she didn't recover from being brain dead just to rise up out of bed and beg me to kill her. It was horrible.

This comment was all mapped out, then Amy stole the thunder. I'll have to be extra-condescending to make this worthwhile. Fortunately, I have mad skillz.

> All I've got for direct
> blood relatives is...

You can tell us about your nobody-loved-me, dad-was-a-drinker, mom-was-bitter childhood if you want to. (For extra rhetorical impact, be sure to include something about how those brothers used to beat you up). But this isn't about personalities. It's about probability.

> I'm far more likely to be
> kicking in for their care
> than the other way round.

This year, maybe. Later, it will be someone else's turn for you. Having done some in-kicking myself in recent years (with more on the calendar just ahead), just as I've seen my seniors do for their seniors, I've figured out how it works.

> Nobody can be compelled

You keep saying that. You keep pretending it's a legal issue, a bloodless yes-no proposition whimsically presented and casually rejected. But when blood, or people you know and love, or even nearby strangers are in the hospital, that ain't how it goes down.

> unless those same taxpayers
> sought a court order
> forcing it upon me

Again with the implication that you'll take your own life at the first sign of trouble... As if we could count on you to do so, and not to be as selfish a spirit as you've been to date; and as if such an arrangement would be tolerable in a decent society anyway.

> I'm neither important
> nor attractive enough.

The best ever response to such lowballing arguments was from Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, answering the manipulative humility of a Soviet envoy: "Don't be so humble... You're not that great."

> It used to be called
> larceny.

Now we call it "risk".

> You walk around thinking
> that being in debt is some
> horrible thing.

Darlin', on the Westside of Los Angeles, I no doubt carry a lot more debt than you do. Be certain of this. (I'm cool with it, though. Sinatra was right when he sang of Lotusland:

The music she moves to
is music that makes me
a dancer...)

> they won't take out a
> loan to mend a broken
> limb?

If tennis elbow were the only thing at risk, that might be sensible... I have a pretty high deductible, m'self. But insurance covers many more drastic events. And when people get sick, they lose energy, and often lose it for the rest of their lives. Paying down debt when you tire easily isn't fun, and it's not admirable when it's unnecessary.

> you expect other people
> to willingly give of their
> hard earned wages so

We're willingly investing in probabilities, and will share our savings with sensibly like-minded investors. You can get in if you want to. Don't pretend you're being excluded.

Read that again, Brian. It ain't about outcomes, it's about all the things that could happen to you, things beyond your powers of prediction.

> You're saying "Brian,
> it's not fair that at
> 39 you're so healthy...

No, I'm saying it's not fair that at 39 you're so stupid as to save money for the upcoming release of Grand Theft Auto VII: Diablo in Dayton rather than protect those around you from events that are predictable if uncertain. Do you understand how petty these sums are compared to the very real monsters that await you in the dark?

> During that time, I
> would have paid $20/mo
> instead of $100/mo for my
> allergy

Allergies. I don't know about the friend Amy mentions above (though I know she had another who was unaccountably stricken), but I watched an uninsured woman your age die of cancer once. She was well beyond indigent with a year of suffering yet to go. If she had survived, the debt would have hung over her life like a scythe. But let me note again, the hospitals, great ones, cared for her anyway. All the exotic treatments, all the surgeries and drugs, all the food and bedpans, etc. Somebody paid for it... Can't imagine who, Brian.

But my friend was nicer than you are. I liked her more. Despite faults, she was brighter, too. Don't pretend cleverness or good character have protected you, things that are yours to share with people like Julianna. Puh-leeze.

You can tell us about your nobody-loved-me, dad-was-a-drinker, mom-was-bitter childhood if you want to. (For extra rhetorical impact, be sure to include something about how those brothers used to beat you up). But this isn't about personalities. It's about probability.

Except that none of this is true.

And if it's about probabilities, then I'm genetically better off than most of you. I've only lost one relative to long-term degenerative disease (alzheimer's).

You're still demanding that I give up my money to protect against a risk that I just
don't see.

Somebody paid for it... Can't imagine who, Brian.

Amy - $190 a month is more than I think something I don't use is worth. As I said - if I had been paying that all along for the past six years, I'd not have a house now. Asset protection is really the only legitimate reason I have for buying such insurance - but it needs to be priced such that it is relative to the risk.

I know coming late to an arguement isn't concidered polite but, hey I live in Europe; sue me.

Brian, Just as Info; I pay ever month something called "Krankenversicherung" Health Insurance directly from my paycheck. Its like income tax for your health and its the law here, everybody pays. Depending on how much you earn and your marital status will show how much. For me it is about 200 Euros a month or about $310 a month. It hurts just to write it down, but my medical, dental and general health care is covered. Except for a 10 Euro per quarter fee to the Doctor everything else is covered and our drugs are much cheaper this way as well. The only people who are not required to pay are out of work people, everyone else does. I don't say it's a great system and sometimes you are required to front some of the costs but it will be reimbursed later.

Matthew - what you and everyone else is missing is this - I don't want to pay for all those things that I will never use.

This is not insurance, it is a cost-spreading scheme. It's bad enough that I fork over more than 50 cents of every dollar I earn for whatever spending my government can dream up (most of it some form of entitlements for which I'll never qualify - and I have no illusions of getting a single penny out of Social Security either). Now everyone expects me to willingly fork over another $200 a month to pay for other people's medical care on the off chance that something might happen to me?

Whatever happened to pricing to risk? Oh, yeah - it went away when the HMO laws were passed and "health insurance" became a shotgun.

All I want is coverage for hospital stays. I don't need prescription drug coverage. I don't need doctor visits, or cervical cancer screening, or well-baby care, or pre-natal examinations. Why should I be forced to pay for services that I either don't use, or by virtue of my plumbing cannot ever use?

Brian, Dude I am on your side.

I don't like being forced to pay this either. I pay "Lohnsteuer, Krankenversicherung, Kirchensteuer, Pflegeversicherung, Rentenversicherung and Arbeitslosenversicherung" Translates to Income Tax, Health Insurance, Church Tax, Assisted Living Insurance, Retirement Insurance and Unemployment Insurance all before you get to the bottom line. In some cases (Single people without children) it can come close to 40% deductions.

Regular reader but I usually keep my mouth shut because Crid so eloquently rips apart the issues I would attack but I have to throw my two cents here. Brian - it’s not about paying for what you wont use. Great I get it, you don’t want to have to pay for me to have a child. Awesome. I don’t want to have to pay for you to have prostate cancer. BUT if you did get prostate cancer, and it advanced and you required treatment how the hell are you going to pay for it? Yes you were able to get a house with the money you would have spent on insurance. Are you willing to sell your house, car, everything you own and then kill yourself when your funds ran out and you basically become a ward of the state? I don’t think you would, as Crid already pointed out, you’re too selfish.

Lindsey, I appreciate that you think I'm a useless lout.

The thing is, I could not care less. By the time I know I have any cancer, it's likely to be inoperable. I die. Big deal.

Don't assume that just because you'll do anything someone else's money can buy to stay alive that everyone has the same thoughts on the matter.

Brian – I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I think you’re selfish (see above) what you think of yourself “worthless lout” (see above) doesn’t influence me at all.

Interesting that you see insurance that way. Do you boycott public transportation because it’s taking advantage of someone else’s money? I’ve always thought of insurance as morbid. It’s me betting every month that I’m going to get sick and they’re betting I wont. Doesn’t make it any less necessary.

So your cancer is inoperable and you die, but what if it isn’t, what if you find it in time. Never mind I don’t care. It’s assholes like you who get into “un-foreseeable” situations i.e. lose a limb, go blind, become permanently disfigured and go cause hospitals and primary care physicians to raise their rates.

For me it’s quality of life over quantity. I don’t want to be a burden to society because I was to selfish and short sighted as to not plan for my care. Sure it won’t happen to you. I’m sure it never happens to the people who say that. (oh and when it does happen to you, please don’t thank God for saving you from the alligator, you should be punished for your stupidity)

Brian,
A little over a year ago, a tornado came through my south georgian town. The first home hit in the county was mine. I have five acres and it had about 30 trees that were several hundered years old on the property. The tornado ripped through the middle of my home and I lost everything I owned. All but one tree (which was dead) was ripped out of the ground leaving holes so big you could drive a car into it.

I have five kids and amazingly no one was home that night. If we had been there, there is no way anyone could have made it through that without serious injury. I know you don't have kids, but what if something like that were to happen to you? Losing everything (baby pictures were the hardest for me) is emotionally debilitating, but add medical catastrophe and an inability to pay for it to the mix? It seems peace of mind is worth a dismal $1800 a year.

kg - If I die, the people close to me will mourn, and my customers will have to find someone else to manage their systems.

Other than that, life goes on.

So your cancer is inoperable and you die, but what if it isn’t, what if you find it in time. Never mind I don’t care. It’s assholes like you who get into “un-foreseeable” situations i.e. lose a limb, go blind, become permanently disfigured and go cause hospitals and primary care physicians to raise their rates.

For me it’s quality of life over quantity. I don’t want to be a burden to society because I was to selfish and short sighted as to not plan for my care.

Cancer always wins. If I'm diagnosed with it, I don't intend to do anything about it. What other people do is not my concern.

If something happens in my world to change my view, then I'll deal with it. I won't hold my breath. I suggest you don't either.

Man did I screw up the formatting on that or what? I'll try again.

So your cancer is inoperable and you die, but what if it isn’t, what if you find it in time. Never mind I don’t care. It’s assholes like you who get into "un-foreseeable” situations i.e. lose a limb, go blind, become permanently disfigured and go cause hospitals and primary care physicians to raise their rates.

For me it’s quality of life over quantity. I don’t want to be a burden to society because I was to selfish and short sighted as to not plan for my care.

Cancer always wins. If I'm diagnosed with it, I don't intend to do anything about it. What other people do is not my concern.

If something happens in my world to change my view, then I'll deal with it. I won't hold my breath. I suggest you don't either.

Read this story.

The salient point has nothing to do with Canada or with nationalized healthcare. The piece I want to stick in your mind is this:

And she took out a second mortgage to pay for the $100,000 ordeal.

The so-called health-care crisis in America will end the precise moment that the sentence above does not cause immediate gasps of horror in the populace.

If health insurance was actually insurance, we wouldn't be having this argument.

But it's NOT insurance. It's almost a kind of ponzi scheme. By soaking the healthy young single people, they offset their losses for the older and those that choose to have families where they don't charge sufficient premiums.

Ok read the story, not sure how its relevant. I'm not advocating universal health care, in fact I'm against it (I'm also against welfare in lue of working but thats a different rant). I'm sticking to my guns here.

My argument has always been "What part of self-insured does not compute".

Our present model of health-care (HMO, PPO, etc) is NOT insurance. It is a mix of deferred-cost maintenance and risk-spreading (and therefore cost-spreading).

I would argue that health maintenance costs ought to be born directly by the consumer of such services. And we should have REAL insurance, where a risk is ascertained, and the insurance company agrees to pay in the event that something bad happens.

I have homeowner's insurance. The price is based upon the likelihood of any number of bad things occurring. Since I live in a relatively uneventful area weather-wise and crime-wise, my premiums are low. However, in the event that a meteorite crashes through my roof and takes out my sofa, they agree to replace it. The idea here is that they have appropriately priced the risk such that on balance, they profit.

In an HMO, in order to profit, they must raise premiums, deny coverages and ration services, because the actual costs of service are hidden from the consumer, and the consumer is unable to make a rational decision about how much service they need. This is why every time a kid gets the sniffles it's off to the doctor. The lack of market forces in health care leads to the presumption that the cost of "health care" is skyrocketing.

In reality, demand is divorced from supply, and people like me (who don't use much) get shafted.

So, until I can get actual INSURANCE, I'll cover the costs of my medical care myself. If something horrible happens, I've got credit to fall back on. There are worse things in life than debt.

I wonder what the difference between "cost-spreading", "risk-spreading" and "insurance" is.

Dear brian: insurance companies know that x amount of people will {insert suffering here} this year. You're betting them it's not you. There's no difference between the terms you used above.

Some companies pad their resumé, provide other services, offer extra plans, etc., but the company can't pay what it doesn't have and has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders to achieve the highest profits it can - just like any other business.

If you're caught out in the rain, it doesn't matter what you call the plan you have to bring you an umbrella and dry clothes. So long as the company doesn't run out, what matters is that they bring 'em.

Shafted? Because it doesn't rain on you today and you paid somebody? Well, OK. The odds are that you'll get wet tomorrow. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

But I can't see you turning down any amount more than your premiums if you get hurt.

You aren't understanding the point, then.

Insurance: I bet the insurance company I ain't gonna die. They know that they will lose this bet eventually, so they price the premium based upon them making a profit if I live beyond a certain age.

Insurance: I bet the insurance company that I'm going to get sick. Based upon my health, history, and risk factors, they price the premium based upon them making a profit if I don't get as sick as the average person.

Cost-spreading: The insurance company agrees to pay for whatever services its insureds want (subject to their denial procedures). They profit by getting people who don't use services to pay the same premiums as those who use way more than their fair share (compared to their cohort) of services.

Risk-spreading: The insurance company gets 10,000 people to all pay the same premium per person for the same risk mitigation with the hope that most of them don't collect before they've become profitable.

An HMO is not really insurance, as it is not a hedge against a future negative potentiality. An HMO is really a cost and risk distribution system that offers more service than it can afford if all of its customers avail themselves of it - kind of like an airline that overbooks its flights.

For insurance to be a loser, everyone has to come down with cancer, have a heart attack, break their leg, etc at the same time. In other words, something that is statistically unlikely has to happen.

For an HMO to be a loser, all they need is for everyone to simply avail themselves of "covered services". Which is why HMO premiums go up 18% per year when the cost of actual care (on a per incident basis) isn't going up at that rate.

Which is why what is marketed as "health insurance" is no such thing. And since the TRUE costs of health care are hidden from the consumer behind either a premium or a paycheck, we don't get the standard market brake on demand when supply is outstripped.

Scary. I'm siding with Brian more and more these days.

Actually I'm somewhere in between. Insurance, frankly, is a big rip off and doesn't really insure any of us.

Look at what could happen to Amy because of BofA if something isn't worked to cover her payments in time. She's scruplously paid for coverage all these years and if there's a lapse because of this mess-up and she falls ill or is injured in that gap, Kaiser could deny.

Insurance tied to a job and you get deathly ill and you wind up sick leave without pay and no premium taken out of your check, guess what?

I've paid attention to the arguments against socialized health care and point well taken. But we sure as hell need to figure out something different. Insurance is such a freaking scam. And we're too at the mercy of the insurance companies' dictates. They have -- because we've given them -- too freaking much power.

Crap. The damned thing only pasted about half my post.

I also made the following points:

I'm having trouble finding a decent doctor because only the medical care clinics/mills that churn out substandard care will participate in my employer's health insurance plan.

If I had Brian's choice between a house or insurance, I'd choose the damned house instead of renting also. Not too mention, when renting they can very easily raise it to whatever the hell they want and while he can have a fixed mortgage, he's got no guarantee of a fixed rent beyond the year's lease.

If you want to live to be 100, you pay for it, not me. I don't want to. The quality of life sucks.

We do a lot of talking about people being able to choose their own risks as far as things like sex, alcohol, etc. go. Why isn't Brian free to choose to risk forgoing insurance?

I'm damned sick of what my insurance won't cover (doctor of my choice, only one lab locally for bloodwork which gives me no confidence in said lab since they had to underbid the others, emergency room only with their permission, etc.)

In short, Brian's right. Insurance is a rip-off.

Also, mandatory taxes, mandatory insurance, what's the difference?

No, society shouldn't have to pay if I get something catastrophic. However, they should if they force me to accept treatment I don't want to undergo for whatever reason.

And, no, don't compare this to car insurance. Car accident you risk injury to others. Your body should be your choice as far as medical care goes. At most the car insurance argument would equate to mandatory coverage from something contagious through casual contact. If you could buy insurance for that alone, it wouldn't cost more than the mandatory car insurance but you are paying for so much more if you buy insurance. Including hospitals charging for one aspirin what you could buy five bottles of aspirin with.

The thing that can be best done by you to assure that your home is safe is by trusting your belongings and your home on a successful and popular home security company.