Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
But private insurance companies don't have the ability to control people themselves. They can only do that by manipulating government - and we need to put a stop to that.

---

I disagree. Private insurance companies are there to make money, end of story. I am only speaking of where I live, but its quite common for private insurers to increase premiums for people who indulge in risky behaviours (ie smokers) or refuse insurance all together for people in high risk categories (ie sick or disabled). That's both controlling in nature, as well as once again being a system that is advantageous for those who are healthy and well off and sucks for the disadvantaged.

---

Quote:

---

I'd probably say that people take less responsibility in western nations in general, regardless of how intervening governments are or not, simply because we are now fully ensconced in the 'cult of the individual' and individual rights. My 'rights' as often cited here in this thread, take precedence over all else and all others. The most important thing is 'my right' to do as I please.

---

Quote:

---

Well in my experience, people having rights does not automatically translate into them taking responsibility.

---

Quote:

---

Some decisions, some organisation of the way things get done, is better served by larger entities than 'the individual'. My preference is for that entity to at least be a democratically elected and accountable. And sometimes what the individual wants is just not possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Raising prices, or adding exclusions, on an insurance policy isn't control. It's simply setting limits on the service they're willing to provide. They can't force you to pay the higher rates and you don't go to jail if you refuse to play along.

I often see comparisons between businesses making these kinds of calls and laws that mandate various behaviors. I'm not sure why you don't see it, but there's huge difference between an insurance company that won't cover smokers, for example, and a law that bans smoking.

---

Quote:

---

Agreed. But the assumption of safety nets doesn't exactly discourage risk taking. That's not to say that all safety nets represent moral hazard, but a lot of them do. It seems worth some critical thought before we crank up yet another 'bailout'. Sometimes its better to let the chips fall where they may.

---

Quote:

---

The thing is, I totally agree with this statement. The problem is, often it IS possible to let people decide for themselves (usually, in fact). But we routinely pursue programs and legislation that forces conformity to benefit the majority - simply because the majority has the power to do so. I think there should be a pretty compelling reason before we use democracy to override personal judgment.

---

Quote:

---

They can't force you to pay the higher rates and you don't go to jail if you refuse to play along.

---