Obamacare’s threat goes beyond the individual mandate
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling Friday that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional is only part of the story. The rest of the story, with maybe the biggest impact, is that the court would let the rest of the law stand without the mandate.
And allowing that to happen could bankrupt the private health insurance industry — and put on the track to full-blown socialized medicine — even faster than an intact Obamacare threatens to do.
Everyone, from the Obama administration to the 26 states, including Georgia, that brought this lawsuit, agrees that the individual mandate is the key to the law because it is the mechanism for making people buy insurance before they become sick. The administration argues this is a reason for keeping the entire law intact; the states argue this is a reason for throwing out the entire law.
But unlike District Judge Roger Vinson, the appellate court decided that Congress didn’t have to include a “severability clause” for the law to survive even if one of its components were struck down:
Supreme Court precedent confirms that the “ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of such a clause.” … Rather, “Congress’ silence is just that — silence — and does not raise a presumption against severability.”
The court did examine two particular reforms to see if they should go out along with the mandate — noting that, without the mandate, the “guaranteed issue” and the ban on denials based on pre-existing conditions could “have significant negative effects on the business costs of insurers.” But it deferred to Congress nevertheless:
Just because the invalidation of the individual mandate may render these provisions less desirable, it does not ineluctably follow that Congress would find the two reforms so undesirable without the mandate as to prefer not enacting them at all. The fact that one provision may have an impact on another provision is not enough to warrant the inference that the provisions are inseverable. (italics original)
That may well be the right judicial decision. But it’s a policy disaster in the making.
At The Atlantic, Megan McArdle puts it this way:
Presumably, the insurance market across the United States [would end] up looking a lot like New York’s market, where during the debate over health care reform it was reported that the cost of the average family policy in the individual market was over $4,000 a month. That’s because New York has the other features of Obamacare — community rating and guaranteed issue — without the mandate. The result was that all the healthy people dropped out of the pool, leaving a few very sick people to buy insurance.
There’s a slight difference though: the government is going to subsidize individuals in the private market. If the subsidies keep pace with the cost, Obamacare’s nominal deficit reduction is going to turn into a gaping hole in the federal budget.
As she goes on to argue, Congress may not have the will to take away the other reforms piecemeal once they’ve come on line, even if they become financial drains.
All of which is why Republicans in Congress should continue pushing to repeal the entire law and replace it with market-oriented reforms, rather than counting on the courts to set things right.
(Note: See my commentary about the rest of the ruling here.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
215 comments Add your comment
sircharles19
August 13th, 2011
6:23 pm
Everyone who make comments is right; so, we are now going to take up monies to fund for hospitilization for those who don’t have or can’t purchase some insurance for medically insurance. Just like we are doing now, when people die, they need hand-outs to pay for their funerals. I understand everyone opinions and I am well with it all. However, we all should want to have some types of medical insurance; the burden is if one don’t have it; behind the lines of others and life threating procedures often that person life hands in the balance. All we need to remember is, health care is a billion dollar industry, and if you don’t have it; chances are your medical needs no matter how serious they are; your chart don’t have to be pick up by any medical physician(s). With some insurance, you have a fighting chance. All doctors will add compounded service charges; then the specialist who are specialized in different field of medical work; you bill sky-rocket and you are left to pay for it. With insurance, you do have the abilities to have treatments that you are not paying for on a compounded basis. Lives are not safe because you have no insurance; they are saved because you have it. I would say that we all need some small medical insurance and funeral insurance. Other than that, nothing is free, if you don’t have any of the above, you stand to lose! Get some type of medical and funeral insurance; its better than nothing!
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
7:38 pm
NiceDawgDeaux @3:45 pm
I wish I knew what you were talking about. It does not seem to have anything to do with what I was arguing about.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
7:49 pm
Dave R. @4:15 pm: ” I can see it all around me. I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet.”
US in the 34th place in life expectancy of the UN member nations, behind many countries with the universal health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_CIA_World_Factbook_.282011_estimates.29
Those darned phony, contrived statistics of the CIA!
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
8:53 pm
“US in the 34th place in life expectancy of the UN member nations, behind many countries with the universal health care.”
MarkV, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
The “life expectancy” number always being rotted out by mindless libs who rely in statistics without explanation is a phony as a three dollar bill.
Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do. These earlier deaths are NOT a result of a failed or lesser health care system, but a by product of having more freedoms to encounter these behaviors than in other countries. Yet the WHO does not take them into consideration when creating their “life expectancy” statistic.
Keep trying, MarkV.
sich neu verlieben
August 13th, 2011
9:11 pm
Driver Against,money best transfer capital but call investigation warn activity discussion award memory adult partner strong notion relation tone difficulty hard therefore lay refer academic though warn down drop star package end channel herself save determine student accident die entirely expense colour easy keep funny morning field steal path search improvement anybody off would gas result concerned finding vote upon drink marriage care anything distance investment commitment security youth of wear exercise religion title category method world fairly gas wing that fresh works actually sufficient
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
9:22 pm
Dave R. @8:53 pm:
As I said, those darned phony, contrived statistics of the CIA. Fortunaterly,we always have people like you who can figure out ways how to deny what they say.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
9:35 pm
Dave R. @4:15 pm: ” I can see it all around me. I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet.”
Dave R. @8:53 pm: “Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do.”
Dusty
August 13th, 2011
9:55 pm
Mark V,
Would you tell me something? Why do you know every statistic that runs down our country? Then believe everyone of them even when there is information to discredit some of them
Perhaps you are a Democrat who approves of everything Obama does, right or wrong. Maybe you NEED free healthcare and think the government should furnish it. Why? Where does it say that government shall take care of you like a baby until you die? It isn’t there.
This country has furnished you freedom and sees that you get it. I would say that we are one of the safest (and probably the healthiest) despite all your statistics. I suggest that you read up on Somalia, Sudan and a few others where it is a blessing just to live one day to the next. A little appreciation for your own good fortune would do you a world of good.
krp
August 13th, 2011
10:48 pm
Here’s a scenario: A tire company has a weekend sale and as part of the promotion, they give away doughnut. The following week, some liberal is driving down the street and has a flat tire, and so they pull into the parking lot of a doughnut shop and ask that the cashier go out and fix the flat.
The cashier says, “This is a doughnut shop. We sell doughnuts.”
The liberal replies, “Yes, I know, tire shop had doughnuts last weekend, so you must be able to fix my flat tire.”
That is how this whole argument is like. Liberals have no idea what insurance is and that what insurance companies do.
Warren Buffett is the nation’s leading investor. He is the chairman of Berkshire-Hathaway. What business is Bershire Hathaway? Is it classified as “insurance”, It owns GEICO and other things but it is essentially a holding company of stocks. That is what an insurance company is: a holding company. An insurance company takes a monthly premium and then invests it. The idea is that over time the premiums are bundled together and appreciate to the point that in the case of a medical need, there is sufficient capital for paying for the services.
This is the case for any insurance, whether it is health, disability, home owner, accident, auto, fire, whatever. Insurance companies are INVESTMENT COMPANIES. The policies that they underwrite and the coverage that they give is the business model which they use to get people to agree to provide them with capital to invest. Liberals seem to think that insurance companies are in the medical business because they see insurance companies pay medical bills, since like they would think that a bakery is in the tire business because they once saw doughnuts in a tire shop. They think that insurance are a ponzi scheme, where they pay fifty cents and have the right to stick the insurance company with a 2 million dollar bill.
Insurance companies are about mitigating risk, they are not about health care, but about mitigating the FINANCIAL RISK of medical care. If there is a pre-existing condition, there is not risk involved, it is an absolute certainty. Insurance companies have no business covering pre-existing conditions.
And the same with auto insurance, the policy provides coverage. State laws mandate that if you drive a car, you mitigate the risk by having a certain amount of coverage, say 300,000. But if you are in a accident where there is a 6 car pile up,. the damages could exceed 300,000 easily. The insurance company would pay 300,000 and that would be all they would be obligated to pay. and any additional amounts would not be covered.
The states only mandate coverage to a certain point, and only to mitigate risk. If you have a car to drive, then there is no risk, and so there is nothing to mitigate.
As far as life expectancy, don’t forget about the kids that die young in the gang wars in the middle of the projects. And the fact that we have men and women that die in the military that are stationed in other countries that do not pay for their own national defense. Or the crack babies that are born to junkie mothers and the ones that starve because their mothers are spending their welfare checks on crystal meth instead of food. Those numbers work themselves into the average which liberals blame on the lack of universal health care.
Songbird
August 13th, 2011
10:57 pm
Krp, Warren Buffett is a Democrat.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
11:13 pm
Dusty @9:55 pm
I would answer your questions if they mader any sense.
“Why do you know every statistic that runs down our country?” Does that even starts making a sense? How do you know what statistic I know? What is a statistic that “runs down our country?”
“Then believe everyone of them even when there is information to discredit some of them.”
Apart from the bad grammar, who “has the information” to discredit the official statistic? How do you know that it is true?
“Perhaps you are a Democrat …” “Maybe you NEED free healthcare …”
Perhaps. May be .. Lets acknowledge the fact – you do not know any of that.
“Where does it say that government shall take care of you like a baby until you die?” Where did I argue that?
“I suggest that you read up on Somalia, Sudan and a few others …” Is that your yardstick for a comparison?
Steve
August 13th, 2011
11:29 pm
Why is America in decline? Ignorance, racism , a lousy education system. Just read the thread here and it’s clear. We are f*%^&ing clueless. Bah by, world power.
krp
August 13th, 2011
11:41 pm
Uh. I am aware that Warren Buffett is a Democrat. That doesn’t negate anything that I said.
krp
August 13th, 2011
11:49 pm
The SUPER rich are always Democrat. They pay their tribute to the Clintons and the Obamas, and the union thugs, and they endorse Democrats and then the liberal media leaves them alone. Tne Super Rich support higher taxes. They SAY they support higher taxes on the rich, but they really mean is that they support higher taxes on the high income people. There is NO tax on wealth, only on income.and activities. They support, if not DEMAND higher taxes on INCOME, because they do not want “those people” that earn their income to become part of the super rich class that they are in.
THE RICH PEOPLE already have their wealth, which they have invested in tax-free munis so they don’t care about raising income taxes because they have little, if any, taxable income, and what taxes they do pay is just a small price to keep “those other people” from becoming rich
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
1:03 am
MarkV, never try to take two disparate statements and use them for comparative analysis.
You’re not qualified.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 14th, 2011
8:11 am
krp: Insurance companies are about mitigating risk, they are not about health care, but about mitigating the FINANCIAL RISK of medical care.
———————————-
The country is full of idiots, most of whom vote Democrat, who think health insurance is some sort of magic piggy bank that converts dimes into an unlimited supply of crisp twenty-dollar bills.
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
8:19 am
Does anyone have a right to unlimited health care? If the answer is yes- then provide universal health care like medicaid, peach care etc for those who cannot afford it.
If the answer is no then turn anyone away when they get to a hospital emergency room and no insurance or ability to pay. It is just a simple business decision.
Do not give the uninsured unlimited tests and hospital care and have them waive all rights to sue. Simple sol;utions for simple minds.
GT
August 14th, 2011
9:19 am
The worst disaster to hit the country in 200 years is the Wall Street crisis of the Bush administration and he bailed it out. That action will domino for decades as we now look down the barrel of lower credit rating. We took the shot as a nation for what should have been a private market matter and we are now paying dearly for it as fat cats on the street immediately started receiving unimaginable bonuses. Bush slipped out of Washington like a politician that had just pardoned Hitler and all we worry about is something we are paying for already.
Are there people, outside New Orleans, dying on our streets of disease or natural causes? They are shipped off to public facilities. The two million prisoners locked up in America get excellent medical attention in most cases. This is once again a case of fairness. When the rich do not pay taxes the middle class that do pay for these indigents and prisoners, getting the short end of the stick. With all buying and paying for insurance it becomes a financial burden for all of us, not just the tax payers. That burden actually goes down because the mass buying of health care. We are not supporting a Wall Street scam artist back by a corrupt rating agency, like the last administration was willing to do. This is a cost already being picked up, it is real, it does not come and go like a Republican war machine, it needs to be dealt with by adults.
If you want to drag someone to court the states should be dragging Wall Street bailouts, but their fingerprints are all over that one. It is a lot like these wars we have supported for decades back by the Republicans, when it is all over what did we get for our money and lives. We are trading partners with a communist Viet Nam, boy we show them who was boss.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
9:47 am
Dave R. @1:03 am: And what qualifies you to give advice? When you cannot come up with a real argument, you resort to personal insults, which is typical.
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
9:59 am
MarkV, your lack of understanding of what comprises a real argument does not constitute a failure on my part.
You have been given multiple chances to debate an actual issue. You dodge them every time. After a while, your juvenile behavior becomes boring and I revert to insults because you apparently understand nothing else.
Now, if you WANT to debate substantial points within the confines of the topic (which I doubt you do), debate. If you want to come on here and spout hyperbolic slogans and nonsense, do so. But don’t expect any respect for that tactic if you do.
J Reb
August 14th, 2011
10:48 am
Esperenza is dead wrong. Mandatory medical insurance is no way related to auto insurance. You don’t drive a car you don’t have to have auto insurance. Idiot.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
10:59 am
Dave R. @9:59 am:
The only one of the two of us who fails the arguments and resorts to insults is you.
These are the facts:
When you made the statement to Moderate that “I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet,” I pointed out that the US is well below in life expectancy to many other countries with universal health systems.
To which you replied that “Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do.” Clearly you were dishonest. In the first statement, you argued that IN SPITE of people getting shot, getting into car accidents and eating the unhealthiest food on the planet and drinking to excess people can still outlive people in other countries. But when challenged on that point, you argued against the statistics on the ground that those factors are include.
One could easily point out further fallacies in your arguments. The number of murders in the US is about 0.7% of the deaths per year, the number of car accident fatalities about 1.6%, hardly significant in overall life expectancy. Many countries with higher life expectancies have much higher alcohol consumption than the US. Only in the overweight category US is in front of most developed nations. But the point of my discussion was the dishonest way you made your arguments.
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
11:09 am
“But the point of my discussion was the dishonest way you made your arguments.”
No, the point of your “discussion” was that you fail to understand the argument.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
11:24 am
Dave R. @11:09 am: Your agument was clear. When you were challenged, you resorted to falsehoods and insults.
Bud Wiser
August 14th, 2011
12:08 pm
Tman
August 12th, 2011
6:26 pm
Sorry Mark V @6:19. Not following you. I may be dense.
No Tman, you are not dense. The comment was ignorant, expressly off subject, and totally irrational.
That is the way of the uber left; when they cannot respond to questions or take information from fact (facts confuse them, after all), they simply resort to one of three very predictable responses:
1. They call the other side racist (1st response usually);
2. They resort to simplistic name calling, simplistic because that is the best their tiny intellects can muster;
3. They obfuscate or try to change the subject matter, as in comparing apples to oranges, or “medicare is being financially strapped, all Republicans want to do is starve the poor and let old people die”, you know, that kind of strategery.
Bottom line, you cannot reason with idiots.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
12:40 pm
Bud Wiser @12:08 pm: “Bottom line, you cannot reason with idiots.”
You are right in this, therefore I would not reason with you.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
1:04 pm
Tman @6:26 pm: I have sent you the following reply to your question:
MarkV @August 12th, 2011 @6:33 pm
“Tman @6:26 pm:
The fallacy of your car insurance argument is that it tries to show the car insurance payment as a fee for owning or driving a car. It is not, it is a compulsory insurance in case of an accident, to make sure that the damage is paid. Thus the equivalent of driving a car is living. The purpose of the health insurance is to make sure that the medical bills are paid. Unless you want to commit suicide you do not have a choice to live without a danger of accident or injury.”
Perhaps you can make a judgment whether I
1. They call you racist (1st response usually);
2. Resorted to simplistic name calling, simplistic because that is the best their tiny intellects can muster;
3. Obfuscated or tried to change the subject matter, as in comparing apples to oranges, or “medicare is being financially strapped, all Republicans want to do is starve the poor and let old people die”, you know, that kind of strategery.
Thank you.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
1:05 pm
It should have been: 1. Called you racist. Sorry
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
1:21 pm
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated. When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[12] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year
However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and end up writing off more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,[11] but it is unclear what percentage of this was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.
Financial pressures on hospitals in the 20 years since EMTALA’s passage have caused them to consolidate and close facilities, contributing to emergency room overcrowding. According to the Institute of Medicine, between 1993 and 2003, emergency room visits in the U.S. grew by 26 percent, while in the same period, the number of emergency departments declined by 425.
Anybody know which president passed ENTALA- a pure socialist program??
From Wikipedia
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
2:09 pm
Ronald Reagan?
Songbird
August 14th, 2011
2:36 pm
Independent thinker, this is exactly why people should be required to have health insurance or they should have to pay out of pocket for their care. If you’re very rich, you probably can afford to pay for your own medical care, even a catastrophic event, but most can’t afford to do that without insurance.
For the very young, a catastrophic policy is probably enough. Most people should have more preventative care to stay healthly and hopefully prevent the horrible and preventable illnesses that plague this country. Health care costs would be lower if Americans took better care of their health. Also, a lot of unnecessary tests and treatments are done because they generate revenue for doctors and hospitals and, in some cases, are because of lawsuits.
Marxv
August 14th, 2011
2:58 pm
Anybody know which president passed EN(?)TALA- a pure socialist program??
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act everybody knows is purely an emergency aid program.
Got another lie to tell or false claim to make?
MarxV
August 14th, 2011
2:59 pm
Enter your comments here
MarxV
August 14th, 2011
3:01 pm
Socialism today, tomorrow and forever!
Dave
August 14th, 2011
5:43 pm
“All of which is why Republicans in Congress should continue pushing to repeal the entire law and replace it with market-oriented reforms, rather than counting on the courts to set things right.” And even after next year’s elections, that is going to happen? And “market-oriented reforms?” Like the stock market, banking, the world economic collapse, the current health industry? To quote a great pundit and lousy states-person, “how’s that working out for you?”
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
9:39 pm
MarxV – when you force a private entity to give medical treatment with no provision for compensation “until the patient is stabilized” which in some case can be years and other people who can pay or have insurance cover the free care – that is soicialism. EMTALA is pure unadulterated socialism.
Kyle Wingfield
August 14th, 2011
10:23 pm
independent thinker @ 9:57: No full cut and paste jobs allowed here. Please provide a link and a one- or two-paragraph excerpt. Thanks.
clem
August 15th, 2011
9:12 am
hope td read buffet today…i rest my case
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
9:23 am
MarkV – Then, to take your argument one step further, we should also provide free food and housing for every man, woman and child in the United State.
No Sympathy
August 15th, 2011
9:23 am
Why can’t I just take care of my self? If I get sick, I’ll pay a doctor his fee to diagnose me and decide what to do to get me better. Someone tell me why this doesn’t work.
Junior Samples
August 15th, 2011
9:40 am
All drops in the bucket compared to what we spend on war, unbudgeted.
If we want to wage so war badly, who wouldn’t support a tax to fund it. Bullets and bombs aren’t cheap. So who could possibly argue against that?
We could also provide insurance to other countries so we won’t wage war on them. Of course if they break the terms of agreement, then bombs away…
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
9:43 am
Karl Childers @9:23 am:
And how did arrive at this conclusion?
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
10:01 am
MarkV – I’ll assume you meant to type “And how did you arrive at this conclusion.” My point is simply this – where does one draw the line?
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
10:17 am
Karl Childers @10:01 am
Sorry about my typing error.
I am not sure why you would want to extend the reasoning to things like housing and food. In my arguments, I made a comparison between operating a vehicle, which may result in accidents causing unforeseen damages (including injuries) that will require payment, and just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid. Without insurance, if the parties were unable to pay, the charges would have to be absorbed by others. There is nothing unforeseen about the needs for housing and food that would be comparable.
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
10:55 am
No one has a “right” to medical care other than the “patient-dumping” protections included in EMTALA. I’m not sure what you mean when you write, “… just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid.” How exactly does one “pay” an injury?
To my prior point – if we are providing for payment of health care expenses, why not also include food and housing expenses since by “just living” we will all eventually have to pay for nutrition and shelter.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
11:10 am
Karl Childers @10:55 am
I am not sure if you are intentionally dense, and whether you really want to argue rationally.
I never wrote that anybody has a “right” to medical care. What I wrote is that no civilized society will let people be sick or die from illnesses or injuries on the basis of not being able to pay for the treatment. This, incidentally, is already in the laws of this country.
“I’m not sure what you mean when you write, “… just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid.” How exactly does one “pay” an injury?”
Is it such an intellectual effort to understand that I meant that when one is treated for illnesses or injuries, someone has to pay for the treatment?
“To my prior point – if we are providing for payment of health care expenses, why not also include food and housing expenses since by “just living” we will all eventually have to pay for nutrition and shelter.”
I already answered this question – are you paying attention? “There is nothing unforeseen about the needs for housing and food that would be comparable.” Nobody can foresee what illnesses and injuries he/she may suffer, and how much they will cost. That cannot be said about nutrition and shelter.
Curious
August 15th, 2011
11:11 am
MarkV, what do you do all day? There are way too many of your comments on here.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
11:18 am
Curious @11:11 am: And what business or interest of yours is that?
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
11:48 am
MarkV – I’ll indulge your comment on my being “intentionally dense” as the undisciplined tantrum of a childish, liberal, name-caller.
I own a home. I have purchased a property insurance policy on my home. This policy covers me in case of “unforseen” calamities involving my home. How can I put this so you’ll comprehend it … just think of it as health insurance on my house.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
12:09 pm
Karl Childers @11:48 am:
I made the “intentionally dense” comment because I already had answered your question. I will take your reaction to that as an undisciplined tantrum of a childish conservative. As for the “name caller,” perhaps you can enlighten me about what names I called you.
As for a comparison with home insurance – again, I have to repeat the basic argument. First, every insurance is about unforeseen events (even life insurance involves a foreseen event, but happening unexpectedly). That is the difference, as I wrote before, from food and shelter, by shelter meaning support of housing, which is what you started with. But the difference between health insurance and property insurance policy on the home is that if you have a damage of the house, even a complete loss, you will still be alive and hopefully healthy. You will not die because of that. The cost of the house also is a foreseeable expense, unlike medical expenses, where you do not know what treatment might be required.