-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:02:44AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
> Nathan Saper wrote:
>
> <<Nathan seems to be arguing that insurance companies should be forced
> to cover people at a rate to be set by someone other than the insurance
> company. Tim May objects to this plan.>>
Close. I am arguing that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to
deny coverage based upon factors that the insuree does not have
control over. For example, I smoke, so I really can't blame an
insurance company for charging me extra, because that's a factor I
have control over.
>
> > Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of
> > dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that
> > they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to
> > make decent profits.
>
> Hand-waving. Get some numbers and crunch them. (No, I don't have them at
> hand, either, but I'm not making claims about the ability of any
> corporation to profit under any arbitrary rules I wish to set.)
Fine. I'll try to find some numbers. I don't have any off the top of
my head, though. It just seems that because A) the insurance
companies make good profits and B) the number of people denied
coverage based upon genetic abnormalities is fairly small, it wouldn't
affect them too much.
>
>
> > Also, people cannot simply create insurance companies. Breaking into
> > the healthcare business is damn near impossible
> <snip the rest of the sentence>
>
> This is the only thing you've written with which I agree. But it's an
> argument for _less_ government intervention rather than more.
I don't really see it as an argument for either side. Breaking into
the medical industry is so difficult because there is an entire
infrastructure that is developed around the established corporations,
and this infrastructure isn't very flexible.
>
>
> > And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the
> > possibility of simply paying for their coverage.
>
> Eh? I've been uninsured for maybe half of my adult life. On such
> occasions as I need medical care, I simply pay for it. Cash or check,
> they'll take it all.
>
> Of course you said "coverage", not "care", but the alleged problem is
> that people can't get medical _care_. Who cares if they have _coverage_,
> so long as their medical needs are taken care of?
Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may
be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up
being required.
>
> As I wrote before (like, a couple of hours ago), most of the people who
> insist on a right to "affordable" medical insurance seem to expect to
> get a lot more out of the insurance company than they put into it. They
> should just be honest and go on welfare if they're looking for a
> handout, rather than attempt to claim the moral high ground.
>
Isn't this the whole idea of insurance? You pay them x dollars, and
if you end up getting sick, they most likely have to pay more than x
dollars to treat you. The insurers are banking on the fact that the
majority of the people who have insurance don't get sick.
So, yes, the whole idea of insurance is to get out more than you put in.
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE57omi2FWyBZrQ84IRAs1CAJ0WtRuU1/FvJFo/dbdm+4VAoqWsvgCfXJvs
Flv6JSJLfx6+CYbmKXOLPBQ=
=g1jS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
