On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Marshall Clow wrote:
So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
Why?
Because keeping people operable longer makes for net savings for the society? This perhaps isn't a reason for *private* companies to issue insurance fairly, but is a clear incentive to the society to nevertheless maintain a public health insurance infrastructure. Following the same line of reasoning, it is beneficial for the society as a whole (whether through the government or through concerted action of individuals) to pressure any insurer to comply with this general goal. I think this can be accomplished without the Men with Guns as well. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university