-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:51:56AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
Nowhere in this business model is there any shred of entitlement or obligation. The insured is not entitled to coverage. The insurer is not obligated to write a policy on someone who has risk that makes the policy too cheap for the insurer to make money.
In theory, fine. However, we live in a society where people are not automatically given healthcare. If you don't have insurance, and you don't have the money to pay for treatment, you're shit out of luck. If the insurance companies deny treatment to people who MAY develop a disease later, they are setting these people up to die without healthcare.
That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this one on them constitutes theft of their resources. If you want to have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money instead. ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal.
I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to maintain the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government.
Maybe I view things differently than you do. I just think that in a country as rich as ours, we can afford to keep our population healthy.
Everybody dies of something. Some are likely to die sooner than others, due to accidents of birth or extreme lifestyle. That is reality. I persist in thinking that "freedom" means everybody gets to decide how to use his/her own talents and property and how to deal with his/her own deficiencies, genetic or otherwise.
That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of people to live happy, productive lives. A discriminatory policy such as this one would infringe on that freedom.
I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person for doing it. I also feel that history has shown us that those who receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the work and sacrifice that it represents. Compelled charity is morally and emotionally meaningless.
Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it.
Bear
- -- 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: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/> iD8DBQE5853J2FWyBZrQ84IRAs28AJ4u5RERYh0JMM9NsFqUvmRZVO7OAACaA0jq 9h+Bd0iUF5TpxBru6/5ouWE= =bKuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----