CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
Nathan Saper gropes:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:02:44AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
<<Nathan seems to be arguing that insurance companies should be forced to cover people at a rate to be set by someone other than the insurance company. Tim May objects to this plan.>>
Close. I am arguing that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to deny coverage based upon factors that the insuree does not have control over. For example, I smoke, so I really can't blame an insurance company for charging me extra, because that's a factor I have control over.
So, by extension, people who are 98 years old should be able to purchase life or health insurance at the same rates as those who are 22 years old. After all, they have no control over their age. Your position is internally inconsistent as well as dishonest and unfair. If you believe that people are entitled to medical care simply because they exist, then at least admit that to yourself and advocate that government should provide it through tax collections. The "Big Rich Insurance Company Who Can Afford It" is simply passing the costs on to the rest of us anyway. But why should this burden be placed on the managers and stock holders of the insurance company? It isn't *their* fault that the prospective insured has a genetic predisposition to heart disease (or whatever).
Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to make decent profits.
The poor old widow whose mutual fund owns the insurance company stock is being deprived of income thanks to your mandate. How is that fair?
And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.
Of course you said "coverage", not "care", but the alleged problem is that people can't get medical _care_. Who cares if they have _coverage_, so long as their medical needs are taken care of?
Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up being required.
Again, this is being dishonest. Coverage is less expensive than care only because *someone else is paying for it*. It is the care that is needed, not "coverage". Mandated "coverage" is simply care that someone else is being required to provide. Any insurance company obviously prefers to minimize "coverage" that *it knows* is going to require care to be paid for.
As I wrote before (like, a couple of hours ago), most of the people who insist on a right to "affordable" medical insurance seem to expect to get a lot more out of the insurance company than they put into it. They should just be honest and go on welfare if they're looking for a handout, rather than attempt to claim the moral high ground.
Isn't this the whole idea of insurance? You pay them x dollars, and if you end up getting sick, they most likely have to pay more than x dollars to treat you. The insurers are banking on the fact that the majority of the people who have insurance don't get sick.
So, yes, the whole idea of insurance is to get out more than you put in.
No. The idea of insurance is to *insure* yourself (and family, etc.) against unexpected catastrophic losses by pooling risk. This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if "large" unexpected expenses are incurred. This type of insurance would have a huge positive effect on health care prices in this country. Prices keep spiraling upward because the individual doesn't have any incentive to control costs. The individual's only motivation is, as you stated, "get out more than you put in". Since the individual is not motivated to control costs, neither is the doctor (excluding HMOs which are an effect of this whole issue). Given an unknown condition, the doctor is inclined to order any test or administer any treatment that *might* be beneficial, no matter how unlikely. After all, this covers his ass: the more tests or treatments tried, the less likely the doctor is to be sued for "negligently" failing to consider an option. - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if
The system only works because employers are picking up a large chunk of the tab. And they only do it because of tax advantages. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:38:12PM +0000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
Nathan Saper gropes:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:02:44AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
<<Nathan seems to be arguing that insurance companies should be forced to cover people at a rate to be set by someone other than the insurance company. Tim May objects to this plan.>>
Close. I am arguing that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to deny coverage based upon factors that the insuree does not have control over. For example, I smoke, so I really can't blame an insurance company for charging me extra, because that's a factor I have control over.
So, by extension, people who are 98 years old should be able to purchase life or health insurance at the same rates as those who are 22 years old. After all, they have no control over their age.
Your position is internally inconsistent as well as dishonest and unfair. If you believe that people are entitled to medical care simply because they exist, then at least admit that to yourself and advocate that government should provide it through tax collections.
I have admitted that to myself. I support socialized healthcare. I just don't see us moving in that direction (unfortunately).
The "Big Rich Insurance Company Who Can Afford It" is simply passing the costs on to the rest of us anyway. But why should this burden be placed on the managers and stock holders of the insurance company? It isn't *their* fault that the prospective insured has a genetic predisposition to heart disease (or whatever).
No one forced them to create an insurance company (or to purchase insurance company stock). Again, the primary reason for having healthcare in the first place is not to make money. It is to keep people healthy.
Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to make decent profits.
The poor old widow whose mutual fund owns the insurance company stock is being deprived of income thanks to your mandate. How is that fair?
A small dip in stock prices vs. people dying because of lack of healthcare. For me, at least, it's easy to see which one is worse.
And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.
Of course you said "coverage", not "care", but the alleged problem is that people can't get medical _care_. Who cares if they have _coverage_, so long as their medical needs are taken care of?
Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up being required.
Again, this is being dishonest. Coverage is less expensive than care only because *someone else is paying for it*. It is the care that is needed, not "coverage". Mandated "coverage" is simply care that someone else is being required to provide. Any insurance company obviously prefers to minimize "coverage" that *it knows* is going to require care to be paid for.
OK, so what? Insurance exists so that people put in x dollars, and if they get sick, the insurer pays for their medical bills. That is the purpose of insurance. Again, I see that as being more important than the insurance company making huge profits.
As I wrote before (like, a couple of hours ago), most of the people who insist on a right to "affordable" medical insurance seem to expect to get a lot more out of the insurance company than they put into it. They should just be honest and go on welfare if they're looking for a handout, rather than attempt to claim the moral high ground.
Isn't this the whole idea of insurance? You pay them x dollars, and if you end up getting sick, they most likely have to pay more than x dollars to treat you. The insurers are banking on the fact that the majority of the people who have insurance don't get sick.
So, yes, the whole idea of insurance is to get out more than you put in.
No. The idea of insurance is to *insure* yourself (and family, etc.) against unexpected catastrophic losses by pooling risk.
This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if "large" unexpected expenses are incurred. This type of insurance would have a huge positive effect on health care prices in this country. Prices keep spiraling upward because the individual doesn't have any incentive to control costs. The individual's only motivation is, as you stated, "get out more than you put in".
Since the individual is not motivated to control costs, neither is the doctor (excluding HMOs which are an effect of this whole issue). Given an unknown condition, the doctor is inclined to order any test or administer any treatment that *might* be beneficial, no matter how unlikely. After all, this covers his ass: the more tests or treatments tried, the less likely the doctor is to be sued for "negligently" failing to consider an option.
- GH
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
- -- 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: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58LdM2FWyBZrQ84IRAmd8AJwLZIEgK8QImNMZVk3WK1qEytXAxgCgn3t4 FtynKzPwVOEA0jNdKTWsUS0= =F9ms -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Gil Hamilton -
Nathan Saper -
petro