Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Stormwalker wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less promiscuously, whatever.
I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates rise, along with a host of other problems.
No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with nationalized social medicine. Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here? Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly (or even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable reasons). By the way, any scheme to force everyone into the same insurance pool for the same premiums is profoundly antiliberty and is unconstitutional (violates all sorts of rights). "Opting out" of coverage is always fair. If I know I am not a rock climber, why would I pay for coverage for rock climbing falls? And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/ (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. Think about it.) --Tim May
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:
I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates rise, along with a host of other problems. No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with nationalized social medicine.
No, I am not confusing medical insurance with socialized medicine or anything else. I mentioned life insurance on purpose. That is a bet on when I will die, they bet later, I bet earlier. Money can be made - although never by me unless I cheat. Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head to the nearest emergency room. The pool I speak of is simply that I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have shared types of services and very specific service. I will most likely never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for broken bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we are born.
Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here?
Well, you probably don't need to explain the problems of socialized medicine, but I would like to hear about how you will do your own X-Rays or chemotherapy.
Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly (or even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable reasons).
Not any more. See life insurance. Also, please keep in mind that insurance compnaies do not make their money from premiums, but from investments of all the premiums they collect and hold. Your model is not correct.
By the way, any scheme to force everyone into the same insurance pool for the same premiums is profoundly antiliberty and is unconstitutional (violates all sorts of rights). "Opting out" of coverage is always fair. If I know I am not a rock climber, why would I pay for coverage for rock climbing falls? And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/
This is a detour from my original proposition, but in answer to your question, you do not pay for rock climbing injuries. You pay for what you need and the rock climber pays for rock climbing risks. You may do something else risky or eat too many french fries that will cause a heart attack later. The rock climber will probably not have that heart attack. Opt out if you wish. I have opted out for a number of years by choice myself and have opted in as well.
(There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. Think about it.)
This scenario of testing for specific genes is already underway. Stay tuned. cheers, bob
participants (3)
-
Billy -
Stormwalker -
Tim May