At 10:07 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:
At 9:27 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:57:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote: In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for the state to interfere with.
You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not getting a fair deal.
But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to.
Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to make decent profits.
So? What authority gets to decide what "decent" profits are? Businesses _should_ always seek to maximize their profits in the long term.
My point is, it wouldn't be death for the business if they were forced to insure people with genetic abnormalities.
You'd have to do more than blindly assert that before I would agree. Even if I was willing to concede that point, you still have skated around the "Who gets set up as arbiter of 'decent' profits" question.
And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.
What is preventing them from simply paying for their treatment?
Coverage is often cheaper than treatment.
So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)? Why? -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>