On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
not insuring such a person. The things we're concerned with are conditions such as a familial tendency towards heart disease or a possibility of developing diabetes later in life. For the most part, they're not things that prevent people from holding jobs and having money.
Which is precisely why there is no reason these people should not have their insurance at precisely the same rate as everybody else - you cannot foresee whether any particular individual will get the disease. What can you say, it's unfair and I hold fairness in high regard. In addition, I'm certainly not saying we should make this happen legislatively. I just think people should boycott unfair insurance companies and perhaps shun their clientele and employees for behaving badly. Maybe refuse to treat them when they have a stroke...
I see a possibility for the equivalent of high-risk vehicular insurance for people who have genetic defects as genetic testing for insurance purposes becomes more common.
Here the concept of variable rates based on belonging to risk groups is, if not unheard of, nevertheless much rarer than in the States. Hence, I see no value in the parallel.
Why do you believe that those who are born with genetic problems have additional entitlements that the rest of us don't have?
And my counter is, why do you think equal cost of health care is in any way 'additional'? I do think the end justifies the means.
Alternatively, attempt to justify placing the burden for healthcare of a particular person with genetic defects on any of the following: (b) insurance companies
It's really too bad they didn't know what sort of business they were getting into when they started...
(c) taxpayers
They should have made damn sure genetic defects are rare...
Even if it is the case that preventative care would be cheaper, then it's just stupidity on the part of the insurance company not to invest this way;
Not true, if the company only controls part of the market - in this case the added expense can easily exceed the benefit. Consider the case with market taken as the globe.
this does not justify government intervention ("You're not running your business right; let us help!" would sound strange coming from the U.S. government, anyway).
Who said anything about governments?
However, I reject that it is the case that additional preventative care would do anything.
In the context of genetic defects, eugenics is pretty effective. If it can be detected, it can be aborted.
Currently, most insurance companies I know of will pay for flu shots and things along those lines.
Which is pretty much feel good medicine - in a couple of decades, constant vaccination of people against flu may cause it to start killing people. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university