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.>>
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.)
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.
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? 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. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net