MightyBobX Quotage

article i wrote for the paper, but didn't get submitted since a different logic member beat me to it:
In Daniel Atherton's article "Insurance's claims give shallow comfort", he demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of economics when he claims "insurance is a different enterprise from normal sales-oriented companies; the service it provides is crucial yet often unaffordable". Insurance is *exactly* like any sales-oriented company; they must sell a product and make a profit. If insurance companies were forced to obey Atherton's emotional whims of what they ought or ought not to do, they'd go bankrupt in a month. They can not make a profit selling fire insurance to people whose houses are on fire. But they "make plenty of profit" he claims; how much is enough, Atherton? As much as you say so? Companies must be free to pursue as much profit as they see fit; that is the fundamental drive behind all productivity. To force them to insure non-profitable customers prevents them from insuring anyone by sucking out the profits they need to run their company. Further, they are not trying to get government to shoulder insurance costs; all government insurance would do is reduce demand for their own product. Any sort of existing government insurance stems from the flawed idea that insurance is a magical device that everyone just *needs* without cost or effort. Insurance is no differant than any other service; free men take an enormous amount of risk upon themselves to create and manage a company that betters the lives of all who can use their services and earns them their own well-deserved profits. The last thing this country needs is more statism in the form of legislating slavery in the form of corporate restrictions; well, maybe the absolute last thing it needs is whiny liberal students complaining that they can't have their cake and eat it too.