[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Perhaps, although I rather find the idea that in fact private health insurance in America is a "scam" in the ordinary English meaning of the word, to be risible.

So if I pay $ 300 a month for several years into an account that is supposed to take care of me if I get sick or injured and then the company turns down my claim for the service I have been paying into for years, what would you call it?

If not delivering the service promised as part of the purchase agreement isn't a scam, what is it?

Perhaps what is really meant behind the empty headed Left maundering is that private insurance as a national policy solution for mass health insurance coverage is not an optimal choice.

Paying for services and not having them delivered is indeed suboptimal. Especially if you die as a result.

That is probably true, although fundamentally a different proposition.

It is telling that most of the Left bleating here about insurance revolves around health insurance (excepting the laughably innumerate idiocy about self-insuring a house, evidently made by a poster incapable of even simple maths). US insurance industry would seem well served to pivot to supporting national basic care and retreating to upper income supplementary coverage, a less politically fraught and likely more profitable segment in the long run.

The employer mandate is an incredible bit of market friction that takes up a lot of resources from businesses that could be spent focusing on their core competency. We can start there. I agree with the bit about supplemental care with basic national coverage. That would be far better than the current system.