The corruption of the insurance industry lies at its fundamental core, which is defrauding individuals out of money, to pay for the transgressions of other fraudulent individuals. When you pay something every month, and never receive any of the value from it, what are you really doing for yourself? How is your monthly insurance payment really getting you anything, other than removing a fundamental element of responsibility that should be first and foremost in any automotive intersection.

That it starts out expensive, is almost reasonable. That as a child, you have to pay AS IF you had an accident, just to feel how bad it hurts to loose that much money, so that you would never think to get into a real accident. I don’t mind the lesson in that. What I do mind is that once you learned the lesson, and you don’t crash into people just to see what it’s like, because you know the consequence, that you would have to pay any more than $0.

Insurance is evil not because it doesn’t provide actual value in extreme situations, but because it fails to provide ANY value at all in anything except the most extreme situations.

Say that you have paid x$ per month for q years to the point that you have covered twice the cost of your own vehicle. At this point you are technically allowed to crash into a car exactly like your own, completely totaling both cars, and so long as no one gets hurt, technically its covered. Your premiums shouldn’t even actually increase. You happen to have encountered the exact situation you were paying for exactly when you reached the situation, and if everything was steady, at 2q years you would be allowed to have another identical transgression, again having no effect on the actual policy.

Real insurance does not work that way. The exact details to how it works vary between providers, but in so much as to say any transgression that they have to pay for generally counts against you, EVEN if you have technically already PAID for it (or more). The logic behind this goes like “what if next time its a Land Rover”. This too is utterly besides the point, what kind of idiot would crash into such an expensive car!

It comes down to refinement of the word accident, because if my gas petal is stuck to the floor, and break lines were cut, and the ebrake cable is disconnected, and I have some choice between cars to smash into (if any, I would personally head for the nearest tree) a luxury SUV or a regular SUV, guess what, your minivan is toast. I mean isn’t it obvious why people put all the little signs on their cars that say baby on board? Babies are expensive and get damaged easily. It should almost be a requirement to notify people about that fact, just like your expensive car notifies me DO NOT CRASH HERE.

My real gripe isn’t with auto insurance alone, but the major national issue at date, National Health Insurance. Health Insurance suffers from many similar problems but only slightly similar. Unlike automotive insurance, health insurance never bothers to reward good behavior. Health insurance in fact demands more and more from you, as you inevitably need it more and more with age. But again what if you never make use of it, or even if you only get a yearly checkup, you almost never use the value that you have paid into your insurance throughout the year.

The key problem with all kinds of insurance is that they already are inherently socialistic. That is, they not only already have their supreme dictators (like Lenin) who become very rich CEOs and board members by denying people who need it coverage. They even already have people like me, who pay way more per month than they ever use, which they use to pay for everyone else they decide to cover, and pocket the rest of my money. The inherent problem with a comunistic system is this inherent corruption where someone makes the moral (or amoral) decision to either ROB from the people who DO NOT need the coverage they ARE PAYING FOR, or DENY coverage to those who DO NEED it and even HAVE PAID for it, simply to make another dollar.

They do not inherently deserve ANY of it unless I use it. I am very happy to pay for my own medical usage, but to pay for the medical use of someone else who by all means can afford their own, but just happens to get sick more often than I do, is not fair to me. If it was Einstein dying, I would elect to pay for it. Them getting sick is not my problem, and in a perfect world, would not be my burden either. It is unfair to charge any individual for the transgressions of another individual unless they willingly agree that they will happily do exactly that. To have congress vote on it, does not solve the issue of me agreeing to it or being satisfied with it. I don’t want to pay for some southerners prescription precursor to methamphetamine (or better) simply because it happens to be covered by international insurance and they were clever enough to get a prescription for. The idea of national health insurance to cover regional problems is very troublesome to me, because the economies that cause the problems need to solve them without further convolution of the issue, which is now hidden within the databases of insurance providers.

ITS NOT that National Health Insurance bill is actually worse than what we have now. What we have now contains all of the levels of corruption described above, and worse. You have me sitting not utilizing medical insurance, but still paying, for someone else’s prescription, for a drug that might even go against my religion. Thorazine or some other horrible chemical that just does not sit right with me, and I do not feel should be FORCED on anyone except in the most extreme life saving conditions, is being COVERED by the very insurance you pay for. It doesn’t take a very creative mind to start a revolt against insurance companies following this exact framework, that I’ll even say the real issue would be abortions getting covered by insurance, that would lead to further questions, about whether or not the church really approves hydrocodone, or not, yet millions of church goers pay insurance that goes to ultimately funding street level illegal distribution of pharmaceutical products, which causes all sorts of horrible social problems, and to think that they exonerate themselves from responsibility while they fail to abstain from the health insurance industry, is not only a prime example of cognitive dissonance but also a great example of them undermining their own flock by electing a wolf as the solution to their sheep shearing (health maintenance) problem. Its NOT an issue because you made a choice about it (for once?), its an issue because a choice was made behind your back, and you are funding horrible things because you don’t know where your money is actually going. Worst case your employer decides the kind of insurance you get, not that there is really any choice…

National Health Insurance would provide a standard, and it would not necessarily eliminate evil beings from the industry. It might be fair to people who do not use it, by not making them pay beyond their actual usage of it. It might put more controls on where the money could be spent that could be nationally enforced. Its good to have a fallback policy, but the real problem isn’t the National Health Insurance bill (necessarily, but we’ll revisit that in a moment), the real problem is there are no Insurance companies that are ALIVE anymore that stood up against the big oppressors who standardized a level of care that you do not necessarily believe in supporting, as being good for humanity, that maybe a higher level of care would be worth it, but that the way the chips fell, with only a few huge insurance companies to choose from, often leaving you no choice in the matter if you want to get inexpensive coverage, especially if you do not use it, traps you NOT in an insurance plan but traps you inside of a REALITY that you do not wish to be a part of. A reality where you pay for other people to pop a pill for the rest of their lives (instead of a bullet, if your a republican) instead of solving the problem in the first place with the actual therapy from the actual diagnosis that the patient needed in the first place but never got, either because insurance wouldn’t cover it, or because the doctor profited from simply writing the prescription they were marketed and getting you out of their hair, insurance profited too (thats all they would cover), and so did the pharmaceutical industry. Guess what these three profitable people are gong to do? Exactly the same thing again, and you are stuck in a sub-par reality where you blindly pay to support exactly what you would kill in a second, if you had the chance. The same people who own stock for one of these, own stock in all of them. Keeping the same bloody cycle alive is what keeps them rich and you poor.

Insurance is already socialized, standardized, and force fed product. The National Health Insurance bill stands to give people a choice, a baseline, some standard of care. This sounds outwardly promising, but at the same exact time, the government, if it plays the same middle-man role that Insurance companies currently play, will NOT do a DAMN thing to increase the level of care, per $ spent, which is what I am talking about ultimately. If I am paying 2$ per year, and I want treatment z this year (only treatment z, thats it) which costs 2$, WHY in all HELL would it matter if the INSURANCE company SAYS that I can have that treatment or not. These letters simply to not get large enough to emphasize. I PAID FOR IT, SO WHY CAN’T I HAVE WHAT I WANT

And that friends, is the only point that matters. Socializing medicine does not change anything. What changes everything is personal accountability. There are no free rides out there, and Insurance just gives the illusion of a free ride, while some people abuse this whole heartedly, there is no reason that I should have to pay for their transgressions. If I am not using it, then its sill my money, isn’t it? I think it goes back to the very start of capitalism, which is trade, where I give you money for something, and I get what I perceive as value back, not what you think is value but is really just pill popping crap that makes insurance rich, is not the solution that I asked for or paid for. If you do not give me what I paid for, then I deserve a refund, regardless of paperwork. If I funded into your insurance for treatment z, and you try to give me treatment y, I should have every right to back out, and TAKE ALL MY MONEY elsewhere. Millions of Americans (nay, most) suffer from overpaying for insurance and to think that they are not allowed to take their money elsewhere if they elect is at least, treasonous, and at most, burned at the stake. What I want is the responsibility to decide where I spend my money, and where the people who I spend my money on spend their money, just like the Insurance Companies love to control it so badly that it makes everyone sick.

Too bad if they are shredding their records, and would claim not to know how much you paid them, or how much you actually used, to force you to take it to court (if you are some lawyer genius you can trust), so that they can still fleece most of them… when by law(it would help if it was explicit) on request they should simply settle the dispute with complete accounting intact, of dollars used versus dollars spent, and that no other aspect of health insurance is what I elected to pay for. I certainly didn’t hire the person denying your claim all day over the phone, but you are trapped paying their wage? To speak of supreme unfairness, is to utter the words Insurance Socialence, but to think this is a new issue that we are just facing today for the first time, is supremely naive. Every group with interests is socialistic, be they predators or prey.

As for auto insurance, I hope it falls besides the point for now simply for simplicities sake but its still a target, all insurance is insurance. So, how many car crashes would you like to pay for upfront? And can they be transfered if I don’t use them?

Share |
  Support Development... Donate! $50 $100 $300 $500 $1000 ...