CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
petro
petro at bounty.org
Mon Oct 23 23:45:07 PDT 2000
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, petro wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
>> >completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
>> >might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance
>> >and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness,
>> >even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly)
>> deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. They
>> could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast
>> cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic
>> predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her
>> insurance for *all* other illnesses.
>>
>> Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just*
>> for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to
>> eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues.
>>
>
>But they AREN'T deregulated, at least not yet. In any case, the
>debate was about what companies should do NOW, not about what they
No, the argument was over what it would be *right* for
insurance companies to do.
>would/could/should do in the as-of-now imaginary world of total
>deregulation.
>
>I can't debate about the deregulation of insurance, because I'm not
>well-read on that subject.
>
>> That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner"
>
>Come on, now. Our disagreement doesn't automatically classify me as a
>"thoughtless whiner." I have thought about these issues; I just
>haven't reached the same conclusions you have.
I am not calling you a thoughtless whiner because you
disagree with me. I have disagreed with many on this list--including
Mr. May, and Mr. Choate, but I would call neither of them thoughtless.
You have consistently (in the short time you've been "here)
advocated positions that indicate a severe lack of cycles spent on
the ramifications of that which you argue.
>
>> and Sambo A. S.
>> seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for
>> everyone else.
>
>The costs for the few would rise much more than the savings for the
>many. Therefore, the number of people with genetic abnormalities who
>could not afford insurance would rise, while the number of genetically
>normal people who could afford insurance would not be altered
>drastically.
No, they wouldn't.
Ailments caused by genetic predispositions, once they
manifest, are *very* expensive, and help set the bell curve. In an
insurance market with deregulated players (both providers and
consumers) a companies would be forced to compete *much* harder than
they do now.
As it is, government influence in the Medical Insurance
market has strongly distorted costs, and driven up the prices for
medical care *and* insurance.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
--Dr. Kathleen Dixon,
Director of Women s Studies,
Bowling Green State University
More information about the Testlist
mailing list