Why is it that people accept other forms of insurance, such as automobile and homeowners, for what they are, but treat health insurance as a way to pay medical bills at a fraction of their true cost?
Many, like Arthur Garson Jr. ["Roll out a safety net for our people," Aug. 13] believe (1) everyone should have the same insurance, and (2) it should cover everything at low cost. And, if a person can't afford it, everyone else should pay for it.
Insurance is a social contract to spread risk. Based on actuarial data, the sum of all premiums generally pays the sum of all claims.
We require drivers to insure themselves. The premiums a person pays reflect that person's degree of risk. An unmarried young man driving a new sports car pays thousands a year; a middle-aged woman driving her sedan pays hundreds.
Rich or poor--it doesn't matter. If you drive, you must pay insurance premiums. (And by the way, some of that coverage is for medical in the event of an accident, the premium amount also tied to the driver's risk.)
If you own or rent a home, and your mortgage company or landlord allows it, you don't have to have homeowners insurance at all. Your house burns down, it's on you. The house never burns down--well, you saved that insurance money.
Similarly with life insurance. The closer you are, statistically, to being dead, the more it costs.
We have been conditioned by writers like Mr. Garson to expect our personal health care to be delivered at no cost to us. That is unreasonable.
Medical professionals should be explaining how citizens can manage and pay for their health care, and work on a cost-effective and responsive health care system. They should not be touting fiscally irresponsible universal "solutions."
Payne Kilbourn King George