On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, 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.
It's not? Demonstrate where Libertarian or Anarchic ideals take care of this person even in principle? Explain how they're not turned away and left to die?
I did, and you brought up the reason why yourself:
And don't invoke the old 'somebody will take care of them' bullshit. Because it is clear today that many people don't get taken care of at all.
Explain why moving to such a system will empower the mild of human kindness in these sad souls?
It's not kindness, it's *for the money*. If I (as Evil Insurance Inc) can make money selling a policy, I am going to do it. If you have a genetic pre-dispositing to, say, Brain Cancer, and I can write a policy that says I cover you for everything *BUT* that, why shouldn't I? Yes, it might be inordinately expensive for you to get a policy that *does* cover brain cancer, but you will be covered for lung cancer (unless you choose to smoke), testicular cancer or Alzheimer's disease. I can make money, so I will.
If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies.
They could, but they're not stupid. In a un-regulated market the insurance companies will focus on profits alone and that unfortuantely (and much to the chagrin of the libertarian/anarchy crowd) means that there will actualy be LESS insurance available and it will exist at a higher cost.
How so? Insurance companies make money 2 ways. First is through a slight profit on their premiums. The second is through *investing* that money. If they can invest wisely--and they should be able to after all, they're in it for the profits--and properly balance the payouts v.s. premiums equation--and they should, they've been doing it long enough--they should have no problems. -- 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