And so you won’t be taking it anymore, right, Frank?

Not sure about it being a “rule”, but progress certainly seems to be what does happen. OK, we can call it “change” if that makes it easier for you. But the fact is it does change, and never back into what it was (despite repeated calls at times for it to do that) so progress is a more appropriate word.

It doesn’t revert, it doesn’t stagnate. It progresses.

Impaler: Oh like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, or how about ACORN

ACORN is a gov’t program now?

Spare me.

AGAIN, it would’ve been far worse in the hands of the Republicans.

Sometimes it does , sometimes it doesn’t. That was not my question: My question was, where does the requirement that we must progress come from?

First off, can you name some examples of progress making people’s lives worse? Secondly, I’m pretty sure that improvement of quality of life is a pretty good reason for progress. I could come up with other reasons, but those are less pragmatic and more philosophical, which I don’t think is what you’re looking for.

Wait. Now you’re saying that the insurance companies don’t pool the premiums?

That’s just nutty.

You’re confusing me with Southern Quaker.

Social Security: Zython, you have no idea what a fiscal disaster Soc Sec has become,since LBJ pulled off his subterfuge

Progress improves the quality of life of man.

Sometimes it does , sometimes it doesn’t. That was not my question: My question was, where does the requirement that we must progress come from?

Are you an Underwriter? Have you ever underwritten any Insurance contracts? Just Curious, if it was Astrophysics, I would defer to you, but I have held a California Life and Disability License, Different from medical to be sure, but the concept remains the same, if it was a bunch of neat little boxes it would be easier, and perhaps this was the higher “immediate” rate I talked about earlier, but as stated if you go through the underwriting process that took weeks for my wife and daughter, then I would have to believe there is something more, If it would help I can get my AFLAC agent to blog here next week.

Fair enough. However, I DO remember you whining about gays in the military, so let’s go with that.

Oh like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac,

Dear Conservatives,

Please stop referring to FM&FM. It’s really annoying. Not because it’s embarrassing, but because it’s a pain in the ass to keep finding this graph every time it’s brought up. I really don’t want to have to bookmark it.

I am sure you can provide me with some examples of some government programs which worked well when run by Democrats/

Social Security. Oh, and before you say anything, remember that if Bush & McCain had their way 2 years ago, it would already be in the toilet.

<i.C B , when you say something like “supposed to happen” you are suggesting some sort of compulsion or requirement (in American English, anyway.) I am asking Zython from whence came that ‘requiremnt or compulsion’.

Progress improves the quality of life of man. Then again, judging by your tone, I wouldn’t be surprised if you get upset when the doctors won’t drain your humors.

Have you ever taken a statistics course, Impy? Insurance risk is based on statistical analysis.

Take car insurance for example. If you look at one driver, male, age 30, no previous tickets or accidents, suburban resident and worker, it’s very hard to determine the probabilities that he’ll have an accident in the next year.

On the other hand, if you look at 1,000 drivers with similar profiles, you can go look at the records and find out how many such drivers have accidents each year. (For the sake of discussion, let’s say it’s 31.)

If the insurer could determine which 31 drivers were going to have accidents in the next year, they could just deny them coverage and avoid paying claims. But, in fact, they don’t know who is going to have accidents. So they figure out how much they think 31 claims are going to cost and calculate their premiums for all 1,000 drivers on that basis.

Risk pool.

Of course, if you’d like to answer … ?

True. Odd that lawyers are more prone to working for free than doctors. Lawyers can afford to with the way they bill paying clients, plus I’m sure its in their contract with Satan.

Who says?”

Who says not?

I was attempting to make sense of things in the post, and other posts, Quaker and I got into Actuarial tables and the semantics on that issue, I know Quaker is not an Insurance Underwriter, nor am I. It was that just a friendly discussion.

My claims stand, there is no Premium Pool except as outlined in earlier posts. Actuarial Tables are just a means to figure risk.

This is your brain on Fox News.

True. Odd that lawyers are more prone to working for free than doctors.

How the hell is society supposed to progress both socially and technologically if people don’t come up with new ideas?

Is that one of those rules, that society is “supposed” to progress socially and technologically?

Who says?

Only if Democrats are in charge.
I am sure you can provide me with some examples of some government programs which worked well when run by Democrats/

Like gays getting married? Teh horror!

I think some famous liberal once said : There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

How the hell is society supposed to progress both socially and technologically if people don’t come up with new ideas. If you want, I can submit that question on papyrus if that suits you better.

The real question is : Can we legitimately expect more compassion or thoughtfulness than we get from private health care providers?

Can we expect more or less administrative errors from the government than we have had from private healthcare providers?

Only if Democrats are in charge.

Despite the silly strawmen of Frank and others, no one is arguing that government-run health care is perfect or free from opportunities for abuse; but, given the two bottom lines, it’s bound to be a damn sight better than the shite smorgasbord we’ve got now.