I almost never participate in this group, but here it's hard to resist. On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
It's no longer gambling if the insurances get to see through the back of the cards. I think this is what the objection is about. -- cg