I heard Chuck Schumer on the radio today.  This is not going to be a partisan attack on him (or an attack on him of any kind), as I believe that regardless of your political ideology, many could relate to his feelings on an emotional level.  He made a statement pertaining to the (paraphrased) immorality of the premium increases for flood insurance that have occurred as a result of last year's (and perhaps the previous year's) storms.

To be clear, I am not criticiizing any of the government's decisions with regards to providing aid to any storm victims.  What I am curious about is where people think money for insurance claims would come from if not from premiums.  Insurance companies are filled with actuaries who in a formulaic procedure determine what kinds of premiums are necessary in order to maintain the solvency of the company.  Of course there is a profit factor, just like there is in all of our businesses.  But the primary factor in pricing of insurance is obviously costs.  Thus, the perplexing accusation of immorality, with which again many on the surface may sympathize.

One could conflate this argument with the idea that many proffer these days that health care is a "human right."  To me, a human right is something you are born with, or if you will something that you have been endowed with by your creator or nature (such as free speech, or the right to privacy).  I don't understand the logic, or morality for that matter in the idea that you are born with an entitlement that must be provided to you by another human being.  We can make a choice as a society to promise to provide things for fellow citizens (like welfare or the right to an attorney), but I don't believe that anything that must be provided to someone by another (like food, shelter) can be considered a human right.