"taxed and spent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>
>>> > To set the record straight. To an outsider, it can be easy
>>> > to think that all Americans are doing without or paying through
>>> > the nose, when the plain fact is that many Americans have
>>> > excellent insurance through their employers.
>>>
>>> I'm gl;ad to hear that. However, there are many reasons employment
>>> can terminate through no fault of the worker. What happens if the
>>> employer folds; or someone develops a health condition incompatible with
>>> continuing that particular job?
>>
>> I never said our system was perfect (or even fair). I said it's probably
>> not as bad as it looks from the outside. Since I don't really know what
>> "here" looks like to people who are "there", I have to conjecture based
>> on what I read in the press and elsewhere.
>>
>> I was thinking a little bit about insurance this morning. The whole idea
>> is to spread risk across a big group. When people (or employers) buy
>> insurance, they are not just paying for themselves, they are paying for
>> everyone in the insurance pool who uses more than they pay. Funny how
>> that's acceptable to most people when they think about buying insurance
>> (and that their employer's part of the premiums is actually part of their
>> "pay"), but the prospect of spreading the risk across the entire
>> country's population and funding it out of their taxes gets a lot of
>> people's panties in a wad. Oh, well. People aren't consistent or
>> even very rational.
>
> the US "health insurance" system has nothing (or very little) to do with
> insurance.
Pretty much here too, but in all the years I have worked, I have had
National Insured deducted from my pay.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/