At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
Tim May wrote:
At 9:20 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
The insurance company does NOT have any control over Bob's risks! Whatever gave you that idea?
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
"Bob, I see here that you are "demanding" a copy of this test that I paid for, that you voluntarily provided a sample for, or that you were careless enough to leave some skin flakes for on my sofa over there in the office. Well, you know what, Bob? Maybe I'll let you have a copy of the results, maybe I'll tell you to get the hell out of my office. But if you keep "demanding" something that isn't yours to demand, I may just have to take stronger measures."
If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request.
I am unable to find any gentler way to say this: a lot of you (Neil, Yardena, Nathan, Robert, etc.) are woefully ignorant of economics, markets, and the nature of a free society.
If they're Americans, they've probably been socialistized by the public school system. In addition to the inculcation of a belief system the public schools seem to actively discourage critical thought and the use of, gasp, shudder, numerical data. (I'm speaking in broad terms, of course; there are many isolated exceptions.)
Not that I don't contemn the ignorant. An adult must take responsibility for his education, no matter how badly mangled it was during his childhood.
Indeed. And those who arrive here on this list and natter on about insurance as a right, about how corporations, not government, are the real danger, and who spout about the evils of capitalism should be rebuked.
In this insurance debate, several of you seem to think that Bob has some "right" to insurance...at the price _he_ or some committee thinks is "fair."
You've probably noticed, Tim, that most of those who claim a right to affordable insurance are those who expect to _need_ a lot of insurance benefits. I'm not sure that those people realize it themselves, even when it's pointed out to them. (That may simply reflect on my skill at oratory, but I should think that a huge collection of data points speaks for itself.)
I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society. It encourages irresponsible behavior to the extent that prices are spread to other people. And of course attempting to adjust premiums based on expectation of irresponsible behavior in well on its way to being labeled a crime against humanity.
And it increases overall costs by making people less sensitive to prices. Imagine what would happen if "dietary insurance" existed, with every person having state-funded budgets for food and restaurant meals. (Don't laugh: food stamps already work this way for a significant subpopulation.) The probable effect would be an overall rise in prices. This has happened with health care. Too many examples to even begin to list. The ultimate solution for dealing with all of these folks who demand money from me to pay for their insurance is to kill them. Crypto anarchy offers many interesting options. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.