one which has zero employees, zero rent, and zero stockholders. All premiums go right back to the customers.
Right. My point is that that literally doesn't exist, and won't exist, because it can't exist. Nonexistence is rather a strike against "ideal." Insurance isn't—or at least, it doesn't work as—a magical pot of money whose job is to pay all of your medical bills. It is a hedge. The point is to pay a nominal, affordable monthly fee in order to guard yourself against the possibility of being surprised with a sudden, unaffordable, massive fee, like if you get hit by a car or develop a nasty tumor. The insured's benefit is that in a catastrophic circumstance, they have options beyond "curl up and die." The insurer's benefit is that if they set the odds right, they can make take in enough money to cover their overhead (which is necessary to hire employees to process claims. I don't know why you imagine it isn't), pay out claims that meet the standards, and still pocket some left over as profit for their time, effort, and risk.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost the plot on what insurance is, and now we have people like you who think it should be paying for every single medical bill they have. This is obviously not sustainable for a whole host of reasons, such as the lack of incentive for any insurer to exist, supply and demand issues with medical care if everything is free, and massive potential for fraudulent medical billing.
Obviously, insurance was never without flaw... but your insane idea of what it is and what it should be would make nothing better, and many things far worse.
You have completely inverted my point. See the example I posted above.
If you are concerned that idealized scenarios are not useful, then I invite you to model all 10^23 molecules affected by your bullets before the next time you go shooting. No cheating by using idealizations like the Naiver-Stokes equations. You have to model each individual collision.
Right. My point is that that literally doesn't exist, and won't exist, because it can't exist. Nonexistence is rather a strike against "ideal." Insurance isn't—or at least, it doesn't work as—a magical pot of money whose job is to pay all of your medical bills. It is a hedge. The point is to pay a nominal, affordable monthly fee in order to guard yourself against the possibility of being surprised with a sudden, unaffordable, massive fee, like if you get hit by a car or develop a nasty tumor. The insured's benefit is that in a catastrophic circumstance, they have options beyond "curl up and die." The insurer's benefit is that if they set the odds right, they can make take in enough money to cover their overhead (which is necessary to hire employees to process claims. I don't know why you imagine it isn't), pay out claims that meet the standards, and still pocket some left over as profit for their time, effort, and risk.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost the plot on what insurance is, and now we have people like you who think it should be paying for every single medical bill they have. This is obviously not sustainable for a whole host of reasons, such as the lack of incentive for any insurer to exist, supply and demand issues with medical care if everything is free, and massive potential for fraudulent medical billing.
Obviously, insurance was never without flaw... but your insane idea of what it is and what it should be would make nothing better, and many things far worse.
You have completely inverted my point. See the example I posted above.
If you are concerned that idealized scenarios are not useful, then I invite you to model all 10^23 molecules affected by your bullets before the next time you go shooting. No cheating by using idealizations like the Naiver-Stokes equations. You have to model each individual collision.