“Fine, then direct your comments at reforming the auto insurance coverage, not universal healthcare or SCHIP which is a universal healthcare trojan horse.”
Please point out where I’ve defended SCHIP or universal health care. In fact, I've pointed out that one of the problems with SCHIP, especially the Democrat expansion, is that it is likely to further erode private health insurance, and bring us closer to the dark day of "single-payer."
I was merely pointing out that:
- in this case, it’s unlikely that the auto insurance kicked in much toward the cost of medical treatment;
- auto insurance probably isn’t the best way to purchase health insurance.
Personally, I have high limits on the liability portion of my auto insurance, but have the legally required minimum for personal injury protection.
Why? Because I have health insurance! LOL!
Why in the WORLD would I want to pay my auto insurer for health care coverage when I already pay large premiums to my health insurer??
“Because if indeed this family had poor auto insurance coverage for medical, why did they not comment on this and other things?”
Why would they? They have very good health insurance. That it’s government paid doesn’t especially please me, but I’m sure it’s just fine by them.
“I am not buying your argument for one second.”
You seem confused. What do you think my argument actually is?
“To think they could not afford health insurance or adequate auto coverage for medical is fantasy.”
I agree.
But the law permits them free health insurance. And they took it.
“Just as Freepers said on this thread, they gambled, lost and now want everyone else to pay for it.”
How did they gamble and lose? Frankly, they didn’t gamble at all, and in the context of having one’s children nearly killed in an accident, they actually won big time.
They didn’t gamble because they didn’t go without insurance for their kids.
You may not like how they got their insurance. You may feel that they didn’t deserve it. I may agree with you.
But there isn’t any evidence that they broke the law. And they DID provide excellent insurance coverage for their children.
Which is why, in context, they won big time.
Health insurance especially is like a lottery that you prefer to lose. You get your ticket every month (and most of us pay for our ticket every month), and you hope you never need it. You hope you lose the lottery, and you hope that in some sense, you flushed the money down the toilet every month.
Well, these folks won, in a big way. Two kids at Kennedy Kreiger (associated with Johns Hopkins) certainly works well into six figures. All paid for by SCHIP. Except for the fact that their kids were almost killed in a car wreck, they “won” big.
And for them, best of all, they didn’t have to pay for that monthly lottery ticket!
No, they didn’t gamble, and they didn’t lose.
The only question is whether someone like this is really someone who should be able to get the government to pay for his kids’ health insurance. I don’t think so, but for now, I don’t blame this family for legally obtaining free health insurance for their kids.
sitetest
People correctly drew attention to the fact that this was an auto insurance case. Whether or not this family chose the lowest amount of coverage or the highest amount is not known, but was never asked.
Life is about choices. There are so many cases of people not having adequate insurance and then blaming it on someone else when their gamble doesn’t pay off.
But you have decided to inject the ‘well maybe auto insurance didn’t cover it’ argument. That’s a red herring because it does not matter. The family had a choice. They chose wrong. But they got the big house and the exclusive schools. So they did get that part of their choice. But should things go wrong in other parts of their life, well...just let someone else pay for it!
I’m sorry, I am not buying your argument and I am not defending them.