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.
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. 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. Bear