This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I have a good friend who sells insurance and sums it up by saying, "Success in providing insurance comes from limiting exposure". Sounds kind of mundane on the face of it but it is quite shocking when you really think about it. The whole model is based on giving you less than you paid for! So the logic is sound - spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition because recognizing the risk reduces exposure. So the Republicans are wrong in supporting a nefarious premise. Just don't forget that that nefarious premise is the idea of insurance itself.
"Just don't forget that that nefarious premise is the idea of insurance itself."Didn't Ned Flanders say that he was against insurance because it's a form of gambling?What's wrong with the idea of insurance? It's a group of people deciding to pool resources to reduce risk. How can a free exchange between parties interested in reducing their exposure to risk be nefarious? Did you mean that the current system of for profit insurance is nefarious?
This might interest you. Theowarner, an atheist youtuber, is making a series on "Miracles"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVTgDOCne-EI'm already disappointed in the review, but I'm interested in what he'll say for chapter three.
this totally pisses me off just a little bit. the whole concept. spousal abuse is not preexisting. (yes that is one word. dictionary)
Post a Comment