-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:23:25PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:
> At 10:07 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:
> > > At 9:27 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:57:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > > > > At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
> > > > > In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for
> > > > > the state to interfere with.
> > > > >
> > > > > You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or
> > > > > you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not
> > > > > getting a fair deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to.
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > So? What authority gets to decide what "decent" profits are?
> > > Businesses _should_ always seek to maximize their profits
> > > in the long term.
> >
> >My point is, it wouldn't be death for the business if they were forced
> >to insure people with genetic abnormalities.
>
> You'd have to do more than blindly assert that before I would agree.
>
> Even if I was willing to concede that point, you still have skated
> around the "Who gets set up as arbiter of 'decent' profits" question.
>
Maybe "decent profits" was bad word choice. Perhaps I should have
said "insuring people with genetic abnormalities would not drastically
effect the insurance company's bottom line." "Drastically" is, of
course, qualitative, but I think it's fairly obvious whether or not a
certain action is doing a terrible amount of damage to a company's profits.
> > > >And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the
> > > >possibility of simply paying for their coverage.
> > >
> > > What is preventing them from simply paying for their treatment?
> >
> >Coverage is often cheaper than treatment.
>
> So these people are entitled to something for nothing?
> (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?
>
> Why?
>
- --
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
iD8DBQE57oqu2FWyBZrQ84IRAik/AKCVu2z0tYgOQB4Ag2SLVEMPd5aUMQCgtZy1
KVWniyItZBLzJg8WxM3WycE=
=QBM+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
