Carlos wrote:Yada wrote:To feel more. . . sure?
why would you want more insurance?
Sounds like a bad… plan.
Sounds like a bad… plan.
random . . . randomness
Sounds like a bad… plan.
Better than insurance:
- [li]Stop smoking[/li]
[li]Drink less alcohol[/li]
[li]Exercise every day[/li]
[li]Eat more vegetables[/li]
[li]Brush your teeth[/li]
jaded wrote:
Better than insurance:[li]Stop smoking[/li]
[li]Drink less alcohol[/li]
[li]Exercise every day[/li]
[li]Eat more vegetables[/li]
[li]Brush your teeth[/li]
hmm…revaluating my opinion of you.
goody two shoes
at least you said less
Oh I didn't mean to imply I do all these things…
jaded wrote:
Oh I didn't mean to imply I do all these things…
I get it "do as I say, not as I do"
"Better than insurance"
jaded wrote:I don't think the purpose of insurance and the purpose of healthy living habits are congruent. Even if someone does everything you said, there is still a chance of getting cancer or being in a debilitating accident and the purpose of supplemental insurance is to assist with the financial complications of that. If someone wants to say "hey, you're better off investing that money and getting to the point where you have a sufficient safety net to cover a catastrophe," well, OK, that's a viable discussion. Both things are dealing with the financial ramifications of something bad happening.
"Better than insurance"
The idea of "eat right and exercise and you won't get cancer" is not really a serious suggestion. Its sort of like saying "driving safely is better than having collision insurance." Yeah, people should drive safely, but it's not an either/or.
OTOH, it is a horrible idea to have collision insurance, then decide to drive recklessly.
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
Guess we know who's playing santa at the office xmas party (although he doesn't have a job)
jaded wrote:
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
based on the black and white logic you present in your last sentence, i take it you have never dealt with addiction.
jaded wrote:No one is advocating anything like that. Where did I say "what are people's thoughts on supplemental insurance. . . because I'm thinking of getting it and then letting myself turn to shit"? You're making something an either/or that really isn't.
OTOH, it is a horrible idea to have collision insurance, then decide to drive recklessly.
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
"I have a BMI of 40+. . . but I'm not fat!"
That lady needs insurance!
Got a gig in Philly tomorrow. Any recommendations on a spot to eat? We're staying in Center City and playing at The Dolphin.
I hear the Applebee's there is not to be missed
sweetcell wrote:jaded wrote:
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
based on the black and white logic you present in your last sentence, i take it you have never dealt with addiction.
Addiction is horrible. It is pernicious and can be debilitating. It makes you feel like you have no control. Addicts benefit from intervention and therapy, and they would benefit from having insurance that covers those things too.
Addictions can deteriorate your health. Some quickly, some slowly. On a theoretical level, you'd be better off not being an addict than having to rely on insurance to restore your health.
Many addictions have a significant behavioral aspect. Learning (or relearning!) that you are in control of your behaviors and that you make the choice to act in your own best interest is surprisingly difficult. Nobody can do that for you; you have to do that yourself.
Once you gain that level of self control and self awareness, the addiction can be more easily managed. If you need cognitive behavioral therapy in order to make those gains, then you should probably make sure you get the right kind of coverage for that. You can, essentially, do CBT on your own, but it takes determination and will.
FWIW, the word "Better" indicates a comparative or relative relationship, not a black-and-white one.
clearly you have an very solid understanding of addiction. folks who smoke cigarettes, or are addicted to any other substance, aren't making economically rational decisions. if they were, they'd realize how much smoking costs and decide they'd be "better off" saving that money.
an addict who takes out extra health insurance makes sense, in a perverted way. they know they're ruining their health, are/believe they are powerless do stop the behavior, so they're doing the next best thing: preparing for the inevitable. not smoking and saving on insurance is ideal, but smoking + good insurance is better than smoking + little or no insurance, isn't it?
an addict who takes out extra health insurance makes sense, in a perverted way. they know they're ruining their health, are/believe they are powerless do stop the behavior, so they're doing the next best thing: preparing for the inevitable. not smoking and saving on insurance is ideal, but smoking + good insurance is better than smoking + little or no insurance, isn't it?
I'm glad we agree :)
jaded wrote:sweetcell wrote:jaded wrote:
What sense does it make to have expensive health insurance plus supplemental health insurance (as if your health was important to you), but then smoke 2 packs a day? Do you have insurance so you can smoke 2 packs a day? Better off not smoking and having basic coverage.
based on the black and white logic you present in your last sentence, i take it you have never dealt with addiction.
Addiction is horrible. It is pernicious and can be debilitating. It makes you feel like you have no control. Addicts benefit from intervention and therapy, and they would benefit from having insurance that covers those things too.
Addictions can deteriorate your health. Some quickly, some slowly. On a theoretical level, you'd be better off not being an addict than having to rely on insurance to restore your health.
Many addictions have a significant behavioral aspect. Learning (or relearning!) that you are in control of your behaviors and that you make the choice to act in your own best interest is surprisingly difficult. Nobody can do that for you; you have to do that yourself.
Once you gain that level of self control and self awareness, the addiction can be more easily managed. If you need cognitive behavioral therapy in order to make those gains, then you should probably make sure you get the right kind of coverage for that. You can, essentially, do CBT on your own, but it takes determination and will.
FWIW, the word "Better" indicates a comparative or relative relationship, not a black-and-white one.
There is a big difference between "addictions" and the disease of "addiction". Stop confusing the two.