Tim May wrote:
At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
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.
...
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.
Yep, I wrote carelessly. I _said_ "demand" but I _meant_ that Bob would refuse to deal with the insurance company unless they share what they find. And I'm not so confident that the insurance company would be paying for the test, as you suggested in your (snipped) scenario. I have no experience with insurance plans which required you to get a physical before they take you on; I've always had HMOs (or self insurance) since I left the military. Who normally paid for the exams?
I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society. ...
And it increases overall costs by making people less sensitive to prices.
Plus the overhead and profits of the insurance company. I've stumped several insurance salesmen, who claimed that I'd be saving money by going with them, by asking how the total costs would go down if salesmen and executives and other non-medical drones are getting paid. And the wasted staff time in the doctors' office, filling out the five hundred distinct insurance forms, contrasted with taking a handful of 20s and giving me a receipt. No satisfactory answer in a couple dozen contestants. The tax code in the US is the only thing which makes medical insurance cost less to consumers than self insurance. This is an argument, as if another were needed, against the five million page federal tax code, or whatever it's up to now. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net