-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:19:25AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Nathan Saper <natedog@well.com> wrote:
Close. I am arguing that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to deny coverage based upon factors that the insuree does not have control over. For example, I smoke, so I really can't blame an insurance company for charging me extra, because that's a factor I have control over.
The fact that it's not the insuree's fault does _not_ mean that it's the insurer's fault. Said another way, the insurance company has no additional responsibility to (WLOG) me because I have a genetic defect. However, you're proposing that the insurance company endeavor to waste money on those who are known to be "losers" as far as insurance goes. You as a smoker should be the most outraged in such a situation; the strict standards that keep you from getting insurance at a good rate do not apply to me because my elevated risk for e.g. heart disease has a different source.
The point is, it's not fair to punish someone for a genetic defect that isn't his or her fault. The U.S. medical care system is set up in such a way that insurance is necessary, because if you don't have insurance, and you can't pay for treatment, then you're screwed. Therefore, if we want to keep the system the way it is, but still maintain a healthy population, we must remove the possibility for insurance companies to deny coverage. Either that, or revamp the medical system, and get rid of insurance altogether.
It's not the cause of the risk that concerns the insurance companies, it's the existance of the risk. That's all they need judge upon, and any interference by the government saying otherwise is an unreasonable burden on private enterprise.
I don't see it as unreasonable if it saves lives.
Fine. I'll try to find some numbers. I don't have any off the top of my head, though. It just seems that because A) the insurance companies make good profits and B) the number of people denied coverage based upon genetic abnormalities is fairly small, it wouldn't affect them too much.
"It won't hurt them _that_much_ to lose a little money on these people; thus, they should be forced to do so." Preposterous.
That's basically my argument.
Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up being required.
Still not the insurance company's fault. They're not there to save my sorry, genetically defective ass, they're there to make money.
Their desire to make money is secondary. The medical industry exists (in theory) to save lives and keep people healthy. That is the first priority.
Isn't this the whole idea of insurance? You pay them x dollars, and if you end up getting sick, they most likely have to pay more than x dollars to treat you. The insurers are banking on the fact that the majority of the people who have insurance don't get sick.
Right. And if they're forced to insure people who are money sinks for them, everyone's rates go up, because the total amount of risk the insurance company takes (expressed as the amount of money they pay out as claims) plus their profit must equal the amount of money they make on premiums.
So what? Insurance companies have loads of customers. Spreading the cost out among all of them, each person would only have to pay a small amount extra. I can live with that. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58K5j2FWyBZrQ84IRAjWZAJ4j0GLdHrsuit8wybcUJzP6Uhr70gCgt1cz MCEha0FgcwbKtW2bmLtEwAg= =d41u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----