Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
Which speaks right into the socialist cause - we thus need an instance to take care of the many genetically defective asses out there, without concern for money.
How so? In most cases, the genetic defects that we're discussing are not those that produce three heads and a heart the size of a watermelon; insurance companies don't need any tests to know they're 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. 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. Just as some companies specialize in insuring those who have showed themselves to have shitty driving records, health insurance companies who have high-rate, high-risk policies will become more common. Sure, it'll be more expensive for people who have serious genetic problems to get coverage, but it's certainly the case that it's more expensive to provide _care_, so the expense is not unjust. In light of this, my question is the following: Why do you believe that those who are born with genetic problems have additional entitlements that the rest of us don't have? Alternatively, attempt to justify placing the burden for healthcare of a particular person with genetic defects on any of the following: (a) that person (b) insurance companies (c) taxpayers
OK. So how about preventative care? It might well be that by insuring everyone and keeping them in health, the total risk per dollars paid for coverage actually goes down. Especially if infectious diseases can be kept in check. Plus, the sum total of money paid by the insurees goes up as they stay healthier for longer, thus giving more money for the insurance company to invest into more profitable ventures. This is what governments do now.
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; 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). However, I reject that it is the case that additional preventative care would do anything. Currently, most insurance companies I know of will pay for flu shots and things along those lines. What else do you want? We could cover your arm in a cast so that it doesn't get broken, but I'm not sure if you'd really like that. I can't produce any hard figures on frivolous hospital visits, but my feeling (having lived in a family of medical people) is that any additional preventative care that the insurance companies attempted to provide would only end up encouraging hypochondriacs to go to their doctor or hospital on the slightest whim. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105