At 11/6/12 10:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 11/6/12 09:55 AM, mayeram wrote:
So you are saying that a government is typically better able to decide your long-term needs than you are?Categorically.
I can understand being a cynic and saying that the class of strangers [arbitrarily?] classified as "civil servants" are more enlightened and knowledgeable about the individual lives of the class of strangers who would be classified as "Everyone else" -- But rarely do I see someone include themselves in that group. Not to disparage you personally, it's a pretty consistent and principled stand on an issue.
But it's certainly good cause to make it illegal for people to vote for candidates running for governmental offices.
That said I don't see the whole long term planning thing as relevant to OP, and this is again in response to the OP just to clarify some things.
I can't see a good or bad judgement being passed upon an entire insurance system without knowing...
1. The risk of a disaster occurring
2. the financial impact of that disaster occurring on an individual
3. the premium an individual will have to pay
if #3 is low and #2 is high, and #1 is in the range of between 'virtually impossible' and 'incredibly likely' [but not being either of those particularly] Then the insurance is worth buying. If the premiums are high and the risk-times-financial impact is sufficiently low, then the insurance is not worth buying. And of course in any instance where you can actually save up money to
And, again, of course, it's always possible to do a mix of savings and insurance through the magic of deductibles.