-- At 02:34 PM 10/15/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

IMHO, the NSA has enough expertise and technology to crack just about any cipher out there.

No it does not. The expertise of the NSA, great though it is, is small compared to the expertise outside the NSA.

As much as that may suck, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Besides, in the new world of globalization, I think we should be worrying more about corporations than about the NSA.

Have you been sealed in a box the last ten years? Companies may send you junk mail. Governments will confiscate your property and put you in jail,. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qZj5j+f7JSR/ABzZK5+/yir7dimu3IsDLh8h4sB/ 48gAnJ2OI1E8YcgQ/re3gj59q4FMPy3wGT4nB6PZ8

From: "Nathan Saper"

Already, with WTO/NAFTA/etc. regulations, corporations are often outside of the control of governments.

Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit-Barrel?

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit-Barrel?

Uh, what?

This is a reference to a Monty Python sketch. Tarqin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel was the candidate for the Silly Party. In case you're wondering, Kevin Philips BONG! was the Somewhat Silly Party candidate, and the Very Silly Party candidate's name is not possible to type. :-) -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

...

Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit-Barrel?

Uh, what?

This is a reference to a Monty Python sketch.

We must now convene the Cypherpunks Repulsive Activities Panel to evaluate Mr. Saper's fitness not only to read the Cypherpunks list but to have an Internet presense at all. Not recognizing a Monty Python sketch?! The mind wobbles. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 11:53:26PM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:

"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:

...

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

...

Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit-Barrel?

Uh, what?

This is a reference to a Monty Python sketch.

We must now convene the Cypherpunks Repulsive Activities Panel to evaluate Mr. Saper's fitness not only to read the Cypherpunks list but to have an Internet presense at all.

Not recognizing a Monty Python sketch?! The mind wobbles.

And Python is my favorite scripting language, too. I really need to rent some videos or something... - -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE569fq2FWyBZrQ84IRAjcfAKCrqDdIevqBOeZCANPYeOZ1vN36/gCeLiUQ nHDIUHrR1YSv7IbNY0Z7kZI= =AuKL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "Nathan Saper"

...

Already, with WTO/NAFTA/etc. regulations, corporations are often outside of the control of governments.

Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit-Barrel?

I think the second sentence makes more sense. -- 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 Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 05:57:25PM -0400, David Honig wrote:

At 01:37 AM 10/16/00 -0400, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 07:11:19PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:

...

Have you been sealed in a box the last ten years? Companies may send you junk mail. Governments will confiscate your property and put you in jail,.

Companies are wanting to keep records of genetic information and other HUGE infringments on privacy. Sure, right now, the bigger risk is the government (what with Carnivore and all), but I'd say that in less than a decade, global corporations will be much more powerful than any government. Already, with WTO/NAFTA/etc. regulations, corporations are often outside of the control of governments.

Hilarious. You make JD's point. A company just wants to estimate the cost to insure you. A government wants to take your DNA at a traffic stop and run it against their collection so they can arrest you.

When do cops take DNA at traffic stops? Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and whatnot. It will only get worse. - -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE566WY2FWyBZrQ84IRAp7xAJ9pgVzLZJrWt6Il/hC2AedAPrV0jgCgu4wX h7RKahqxF7nGdFzugyuINqQ= =tNYL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

petro wrote:

Corporations have *NO* power over you that doesn't come from the barrel of a government gun.

but they're doing a good job ensuring that said gun is pointed where they want it point to.

...

...

Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and whatnot. It will only get worse.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Corporations have *NO* power over you that doesn't come from the barrel of a government gun.

That's like saying that the person with the power in a police department is the street cop, because he's the one doing the actual arrest.

The one calling the shots is the one to be afraid of.

No. The one *shooting* is the one to be afraid of. Without governments Companies (not corporations, corporations are inherently creatures of the state) would have to do their bullying directly and that would severely cut into the bottom line. -- 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 Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:17:17PM -0700, petro wrote:

...

...

...

...

Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and whatnot. It will only get worse.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Corporations have *NO* power over you that doesn't come from the barrel of a government gun.

That's like saying that the person with the power in a police department is the street cop, because he's the one doing the actual arrest.

The one calling the shots is the one to be afraid of.

No. The one *shooting* is the one to be afraid of.

Without governments Companies (not corporations, corporations are inherently creatures of the state) would have to do their bullying directly and that would severely cut into the bottom line.

I'm sure the companies could do bullying themselves for far less than they contribute to candidates in order to have the bullying done for them.

No, for several reasons: (1) Armies and police forces are expensive to maintain, especially given that for corporations they are needed in geographically diverse areas *occasionally*, and that by buying the government they get access to them, but *only* when they need them. (2) Private armies/mercenaries tend to be dangerous tools--they have the guns, and loyalty to the paycheck. They also can easily turn on you, or be bought. (3) If one engages in warfare, one takes the risk of getting shot. If companies were to engage directly in actions involving force, they would risk having some of their targets bypass shooting at the foot soldiers and go straight for the top of the chain of command. By buying themselves a government, that risk is averted. Try thinking outside your box a bit. When the rules are gone, there are no rules, and there are interesting ramifications there. -- 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 Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Tom Vogt wrote:

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and whatnot. It will only get worse.

it is not corporations *ignoring* government powers (or "circumventing" them, what a nice term in light of DMCA). it is corporations using government as their executive branch.

And in many cases, governments are contributing to their own demise. IE, the creation of NAFTA and WTO, both U.S. inventions, which severely limit government powers in dealing with coporations.

take a look at DMCA, take a look at the european proposal I have in my hands (gotta search that link, it's document # 9512/00) - tell me they were NOT written by corporate lawyers.

Of course they were. Just about everything is.

- -- 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 iD8DBQE57PC12FWyBZrQ84IRAqjKAJoDX2IbdexFhjnQgNsiDrdjDj7xfwCgwDbb Al+j/yuXQwxbjMT5CXWxY+E= =o4ru -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:

At 09:14 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

When do cops take DNA at traffic stops?

Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this or more.

The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people likely to develop certain medical conditions. The point is, the government is being used to do corporations' dirty work. And I'm much less afraid of a government that is (in theory, if not always in practice) somewhat connected to the people (representatives want to get reelected, after all) than I am a corporation that can do basically whatever the fuck it wants, with little or no hope of punishment. - -- 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 iD8DBQE57PPP2FWyBZrQ84IRAlgSAKCyD7GGCC/2RupKxBhl+gVmppuvBQCgmWLe pAB0z0W6oYNvFnmnUyGFT3U= =PzA3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 06:19:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:

...

At 09:14 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

When do cops take DNA at traffic stops?

Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this or more.

The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people likely to develop certain medical conditions.

Are you claiming that DNA collected by the police is then given to insurance companies?

An audacious claim. Do you evidence to support this extraordinary claim?

I will be very interested to hear which communities, which states, are doing this. So will many journalists, I hope.

That's funny, I didn't make that claim. I simply asked what governments would do with this info. We know what types of things corporations do. If I make a claim, I will make it outright.

On the other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or saliva sample requires court action, I expect you are once again merely hand-waving.

Or maybe you are not reading carefully enough, seeing as I made no such claim.

As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. This is the beauty of "opt out" plans.

This is not the primary concern. The concern is that people with higher risks of heart disease, cancer, etc., would be denied coverage.

But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance companies.

Nope.

- -- 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 iD8DBQE57RsK2FWyBZrQ84IRAmfTAKClThDN9lapSwndWKW7t2zq29FynwCeO5lJ Z3Vcr92ebU88UiWfAgXzcgY= =NVrG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 07:47 AM 10/18/00 -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:

In , on 10/17/00 at 08:08 PM, Tim May said:

...

On the other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or saliva sample requires court action, I expect you are once again merely hand-waving.

Remember that saliva samples can be sold to the public as 'as invasive as a fingerprint'.

Actually it is rather common practice for various jails/prisons to take blood samples from everyone who stays long enough to be "processed" (by processed I mean someone who is staying more than a couple of hours waiting for bail). This is done for health reasons (aids, hepatitis, name your disease here, testing), because of this the samples are taken from everyone regardless of the crime accused of or convicted.

What about the folks with religious aversions towards needles? Quarantine?

At 05:50 PM 10/17/00 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:

...

Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this or more.

The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people likely to develop certain medical conditions.

Discrimination in the good sense, like discriminating dangerous vs. safe. What do you think insurance companies *should* do, if not make various discriminations about risk? Are you against car insurers asking about your other genetic characteristics (e.g., sex)?

The point is, the government is being used to do corporations' dirty work.

What a government can legitimately do should be reigned in by a constitution. And no more.

And I'm much less afraid of a government that is (in theory, if not always in practice) somewhat connected to the people

What are you smoking?

(representatives want to get reelected, after all) than I am a corporation that can do basically whatever the fuck it wants, with little or no hope of punishment.

Corps have to please their customers or go extinct. Real simple. Only govt can print money. You *should* be concerned about various individuals (legislators, their wives, cultists, etc.) trying to get the government to use its violence to accomplish their way. You *shouldn't* be concerned about the _mutually consensual interactions_ of the individuals (and voluntary associations thereof, like corps.) within your borders. Government should *only* be concerned with nonconsensual interactions. dh

At 4:34 PM -0400 on 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:

I'll kick you right square in the nuts if Robert Hettinga doesn't beat me to it.

Moi? Never. I can't reach that far... By the way, your fervent hope and belief has nothing to do with, or, for that matter, does anonymity. Risk-adjusted transaction cost, on the other hand... :-). Cheers, RAH, Who still believes, heretically in several fora, that internet bearer transactions are cheaper because they're strong enough to be anonymous, but that's beside the point... -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

At 04:34 PM 10/18/00 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:

David Honig wrote:

...

Only govt can print money.

I'll kick you right square in the nuts if Robert Hettinga doesn't beat me to it.

In the context of what I was writing, it should be clear that what I meant is corporations can't enforce fiat money like govt (the folks with the groovy guns & goons) can. dh

At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 09:10:27AM -0700, David Honig wrote:

...

Discrimination in the good sense, like discriminating dangerous vs. safe. What do you think insurance companies *should* do, if not make various discriminations about risk? Are you against car insurers asking about your other genetic characteristics (e.g., sex)?

No, because they do not deny coverage based upon gender. They can (and, in many cases, do) deny coverage based on larger-than-average chances of contracting heart disease, for example.

Insurance rates are established according to many criteria. In many cases, higher-risk customers are sold insurance, but at higher rates. In some cases, they are denied insurance. (As when the costs are open-ended...) In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for the state to interfere with. You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not getting a fair deal. But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 9:27 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:57:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

...

At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote: In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for the state to interfere with.

You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not getting a fair deal.

But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to.

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.

So? What authority gets to decide what "decent" profits are? Businesses _should_ always seek to maximize their profits in the long term. Many businesses fall into the "short term trap", which maximizes profits for a few years, which then fall off in the long term, leading to lower overall profits. Leaving "money on the table", as it were. It is my _opinion_ that insurance companies, by inserting themselves into the legal system, and seeking to make themselves a necessity, are well down that road.

And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.

What is preventing them from simply paying for their treatment? -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu

At 10:07 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

At 9:27 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:57:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

...

At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote: In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for the state to interfere with.

You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not getting a fair deal.

But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to.

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.

So? What authority gets to decide what "decent" profits are? Businesses _should_ always seek to maximize their profits in the long term.

My point is, it wouldn't be death for the business if they were forced to insure people with genetic abnormalities.

You'd have to do more than blindly assert that before I would agree. Even if I was willing to concede that point, you still have skated around the "Who gets set up as arbiter of 'decent' profits" question.

...

...

And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.

What is preventing them from simply paying for their treatment?

Coverage is often cheaper than treatment.

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)? Why? -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu

In <007301c03a46$3ae3c020$0100a8c0@nandts>, on 10/19/00 at 09:31 PM, "Neil Johnson" said:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall Clow" To: "Nathan Saper" Cc: "Cypherpunks" Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:23 AM Subject: CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

...

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?

Why?

It's not a zero-sum game for the insurance companies. Most insurance companies make quite a bit of money investing premiums.

In addition, they spread the risk. They are betting that more people will stay well than get sick.

And I'm not talking about people "engaging in risky behavior". I'm talking about someone who has a genetic predisposition for a disease THAT THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO MITIGATE.

I have no problem charging someone who smokes, takes drugs, or over eats. THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

I am also not saying that Mr. Insurance CEO can only make $XXX in profit. I'm sure they can make a profit.

In fact they are making profits right now WITHOUT using genetic testing.

So what? You do not have a *right* to insurance and you do not have a *right* to medical care the amount of profit a company is making is irrelevant. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Data Security & Cryptology Consulting Programming, Networking, Analysis PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html E-Secure: http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html ---------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Marshall Clow wrote:

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?

Why?

Because keeping people operable longer makes for net savings for the society? This perhaps isn't a reason for *private* companies to issue insurance fairly, but is a clear incentive to the society to nevertheless maintain a public health insurance infrastructure. Following the same line of reasoning, it is beneficial for the society as a whole (whether through the government or through concerted action of individuals) to pressure any insurer to comply with this general goal. I think this can be accomplished without the Men with Guns as well. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

Because keeping people operable longer makes for net savings for the society?

That's a nice belief. Can you show it to be true?

In a society where a significant part of an individual's life is spent nonproductively and high productivity generally means high education and learned skills, extension of the individual's life significantly beyond the time required to learn these skills is a must in order for the average individual to break even with the cost of education and upbringing. Of course, this perhaps does not imply care of the elderly. This is not at issue here.

...

This perhaps isn't a reason for *private* companies to issue insurance fairly, but is a clear incentive to the society to nevertheless maintain a public health insurance infrastructure.

Rather, I would say that individuals should be able to decide on the level of health care that they are willing to pay for.

Quite. I argue that should hold beyond their individual capability to pay for the care.

...

Following the same line of reasoning, it is beneficial for the society as a whole (whether through the government or through concerted action of individuals) to pressure any insurer to comply with this general goal.

Even if I conceded your premise (which I don't), I certainly don't believe that this is true.

How is this? If the premise holds, it is beneficial to make health care ubiquitously available. This cannot be achieved if some people are allowed to opt out of the gamble.

This is basically equivalent to "the end justifies the means".

Which is pretty much what I'm after.

How do you feel about forced sterilizations of mental patients and other "undesirables"? Society would benefit by not having them reproduce.

It is far more effective to not put money into their sustenance early on.

...

I think this can be accomplished without the Men with Guns as well. And now you've completely lost me. How would you compel people to pay taxes without a threat of violence?

By making sure the people are completely dependent on the state, probably through some pretty unfair engineering of contracts you cannot avoid if you are to stay alive. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

At 06:25 AM 10/20/00 -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:

At 2:11 PM +0300 10/20/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:

...

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)? Why?

Because keeping people operable longer makes for net savings for the society? That's a nice belief. Can you show it to be true?

...

This perhaps isn't a reason for *private* companies to issue insurance fairly, but is a clear incentive to the society to nevertheless maintain a public health insurance infrastructure.

So it's a clear call for charity. Charity is a Good Thing. Insurance works by letting people pool risks - most people in an insurance plan pay more in premiums than they collect, and a small number collect more, sometimes far more, than they paid, and the participants consider it a good deal because the potential costs they're risking are higher than they can afford, compared to the guaranteed small loss of the premium. Most health care "insurance" plans in the US aren't primarily insurance - they're employer-paid benefit plans that cover routine costs as well as covering premiums for shared risk. Mixing the two systems leads to lots of policy confusion. The tax advantages primarily come out of social policy during the World War 2 government interference in the economy and the industry and public attitudes gradually adapting to it. The other cost advantage of employer-paid routine health costs are that the employer may be able to negotiate a better price by buying in large volume, whether directly or through an insurance company that also negotiates better prices by buying in large volume. In return, there's the extra cost of bureaucracy, though in much of the US, the extra hostility of bureaucracy reduces use of the system :-) Employers do also benefit from higher productivity of healthy workers with healthy families, and they need to do something to manage the costs of care for work-related injuries. Without massive employer-funded health care, most people would be more likely to pay for their routine costs directly and buy insurance for excessive costs. Before the institutionalization of the insurance and banking businesses a century ago, large numbers of Americans belonged to mutual benevolence groups - unions, Masons, Moose Lodges, farmers' granges, the Chinese Mutual Benevolence Association, and churches. They provided a number of services to their members in addition to social interaction, typically including money-lending (new immigrant comes to the country, needs loan to start business) and also help for sick and injured members and support for people who couldn't find work. Medical costs themselves don't really correspond, because medicine was different; nursing was something your family or friends generally did, and modern medicine hadn't quite emerged except for fixing some injuries. The main exception was tuberculosis, and TB sanatoriums were often run by fraternal organizations, though some were government-funded. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:23:25PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:

At 10:07 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Marshall Clow wrote:

...

At 9:27 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:57:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

...

At 5:48 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote: In any case, whether Alice sells insurance to Bob is not a matter for the state to interfere with.

You, Nathan, may set up your own insurance company if you wish. Or you may offer to pay for the health care of those you think are not getting a fair deal.

But you may NOT tell me I must sell insurance if I choose not to.

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.

So? What authority gets to decide what "decent" profits are? Businesses _should_ always seek to maximize their profits in the long term.

My point is, it wouldn't be death for the business if they were forced to insure people with genetic abnormalities.

You'd have to do more than blindly assert that before I would agree.

Even if I was willing to concede that point, you still have skated around the "Who gets set up as arbiter of 'decent' profits" question.

Maybe "decent profits" was bad word choice. Perhaps I should have said "insuring people with genetic abnormalities would not drastically effect the insurance company's bottom line." "Drastically" is, of course, qualitative, but I think it's fairly obvious whether or not a certain action is doing a terrible amount of damage to a company's profits.

...

...

...

And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.

What is preventing them from simply paying for their treatment?

Coverage is often cheaper than treatment.

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?

That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?

Why?

- -- 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 iD8DBQE57oqu2FWyBZrQ84IRAik/AKCVu2z0tYgOQB4Ag2SLVEMPd5aUMQCgtZy1 KVWniyItZBLzJg8WxM3WycE= =QBM+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?

That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?

You're trolling, aren't you? Insurance is a good idea for the insured because it takes money to make money. If you have any investments, any property, etc, which you *rely* on for your livelihood or your lifestyle, insurance is a way of knowing that you will continue to have, and being able to make plans based on having, those items into the future even if a disaster of some type hits. It's a trifle *MORE* expensive than just paying for the disaster, but it's money where you can budget it because you know when and how much you'll have to pay. Insurance is a good idea for the insurer because the insurer does business with a large enough number of people that paying for the fifteen or twenty actual disasters that happen in a given day can be done routinely out of the fifteen or twenty thousand premium payments received that day, with some money left over for lunch. As the numbers get larger, the disasters become more predictable. 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. Bear

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

-- At 07:09 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

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.

That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of

Then the government should be raiding your home to check on your consumption of chocolate, and spying on your messages to detect if you are secretly arranging for the purchase or sale of forbidden substances. people to live happy, productive lives. As contented sheep.

Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it.

We cannot provide all the medical care for everyone who might want it. The question then is who decides who lives and who dies? If the fortunate are somehow compelled to pay for the less fortunate, that apparatus of compulsion is going to decide whether you deserve your open heart surgery or other expensive treatment. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG GUBFD2UeVQbTblq9mDTKK3VT3Zb2kipPNZRPhilI 4bXMDF9BDJEBTLlQ+J9MAOym72PaOobmLE+ThdUZU

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 08:12:45PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:

At 07:09 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

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.

Then the government should be raiding your home to check on your consumption of chocolate, and spying on your messages to detect if you are secretly arranging for the purchase or sale of forbidden substances.

OK, granted, the government needs to be kept on a tight leash. Most people will not want the government breaking into their homes. However, I think most people would be willing to vote for a bill that would guarantee insurance for people with genetic abnormalities, even if that does mean that some CEOs and stockholders will have less money in their already-full pockets. And if some insurance companies do just pass the extra cost into higher premiums, some other insurance company will keep premiums the same, and they will consequently get more business. Again, it is a tradeoff between helping provide medical care for people who would not otherwise be able to afford it, and allowing for insurance company stockholders to continue to make huge profits. Call me a bleeding-heart, but I vote for the medical care.

...

That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of people to live happy, productive lives.

As contented sheep.

How does that logically follow?

...

Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it.

We cannot provide all the medical care for everyone who might want it. The question then is who decides who lives and who dies?

We could easily provide healthcare for every American citizen. Just raise taxes a bit, and cut out most of our military spending.

If the fortunate are somehow compelled to pay for the less fortunate, that apparatus of compulsion is going to decide whether you deserve your open heart surgery or other expensive treatment.

I don't understand that statement.

James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG GUBFD2UeVQbTblq9mDTKK3VT3Zb2kipPNZRPhilI 4bXMDF9BDJEBTLlQ+J9MAOym72PaOobmLE+ThdUZU

- -- 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/ iD8DBQE587l62FWyBZrQ84IRAohXAJ9v+SHvj+ZtGuLcshTFGFTTmssZQQCfYcsa NmCIYVEIph7icJ0eVkVfhgw= =354z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:59:08AM -0400, Me wrote:

From: "Nathan Saper"

...

However, I think most people would be willing to vote for a bill that would guarantee insurance for people with genetic abnormalities, even

My own aside, how many votes are required before my right to security in person and property should be violated? 50% + 1?

How about 50% + 2? ;-)

...

...

We cannot provide all the medical care for everyone who might want it. The question then is who decides who lives and who dies? We could easily provide healthcare for every American citizen. Just raise taxes a bit, and cut out most of our military spending.

Why only American citizens? There are entire countries whose populations are worse off than the most poorly ensured USAian. Doesn't your heart bleed for them?

Yes, it does. And I think we as Americans, as well as our government, should do everything in our power to help. However, the first concern of any government is its own population.

Regardless, don't go to the trouble of raising taxes and cutting military spending - it isn't needed. I can personally provide a some level of healthcare for every American citizen. I'm assuming quality of care isn't a consideration?

It's a big consideration, at least from my POV.

- -- 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/ iD8DBQE5880a2FWyBZrQ84IRApd5AKCzpXNhKGwi7hTBb07wpGw63dX5wwCfVwup P2/FfF8yS6381sybTNbYKeM= =5ReY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 07:28:25AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Yes, it does. And I think we as Americans, as well as our government, should do everything in our power to help. However, the first concern of any government is its own population.

Change that to 'some government' and you're on the mark. Not all governments, even in principle, are interested in the individual well being (feudalism, libertarianism, and anarchy being three of them).

Good point. I stand corrected. - -- 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/ iD8DBQE59n3N2FWyBZrQ84IRAlmlAJ4ziTLZuQDgD+XXMKHhjynIo6SRPACfZn9c z/n+7InZwSzGwQEpQAYE3PU= =O2of -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Me wrote:

My own aside, how many votes are required before my right to security in person and property should be violated? 50% + 1?

None, all it takes is probably cause (per the 4th). You have a right to privacy until your actions infract anothers rights.

Why only American citizens? There are entire countries whose populations are worse off than the most poorly ensured USAian. Doesn't your heart bleed for them?

I empathise, but it is their country after all, This is mine.

Regardless, don't go to the trouble of raising taxes and cutting military spending - it isn't needed. I can personally provide a some level of healthcare for every American citizen. I'm assuming quality of care isn't a consideration?

'some level' is not 'adequate level'. Right now every American already has 'some level'. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:

At 09:07 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

OK, granted, the government needs to be kept on a tight leash. Most people will not want the government breaking into their homes. However, I think most people would be willing to vote for a bill that would guarantee insurance for people with genetic abnormalities, even that does mean that some CEOs and stockholders will have less money in their already-full pockets.

You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than you can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords. It has been tried. A law compelling insurance companies to insure the unhealthy will merely raise costs for the healthy, resulting in more people going uninsured.

If you want to guarantee insurance for the unhealthy without ill effects the TAXPAYER has to pay, and I suspect that if this proposition was put to the public, enthusiasm would be considerably less. Indeed the Clintons did put something very like that proposition to the public, and there was little enthusiasm.

Having socialized healthcare would be ideal. However, I think that the political atmosphere in this country pretty much removes that possibility.

...

...

We cannot provide all the medical care for everyone who might want it. The question then is who decides who lives and who dies?

...

We could easily provide healthcare for every American citizen. Just raise taxes a bit, and cut out most of our military spending.

We can provide RATIONED health care for every american citizen. And then who gets to do the rationing?

Rationing is popular in Canada, because the wealthy skip across the border to the US. It would be considerably less popular in the US, because we have no unrationed health care conveniently nearby.

James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG e9ZUIWoa0uYBCwK2J5X9FrqbTnMcyu9rsO7nNHN/ 44gAW0FvWKBINlJj8Vy3dLcxDWiT2R/BtBDOUSQuZ

- -- 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/ iD8DBQE59oAu2FWyBZrQ84IRAuHJAJ0bVoEZ5vwwUdybOME7Mhzo/XxSrgCgiDMQ 7CqB7/+cHZbw2ZgmYGzn1+c= =udgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nathan Saper wrote:

We could easily provide healthcare for every American citizen. Just raise taxes a bit, and cut out most of our military spending.

Sure, why stop there though. Let's raise taxes a bit more and we can feed everyone who is hungry. No, that's not enough, let's raise it some more and we can also clothe everyone - in designer wear. After all why should the majority look like slobs when they could be wearing what the models wear, and for a little more we could send everyone to college, and for even a little more we can house everyone, in luxury apartments, and provide them with free cable TV and internet access... And since government and religion don't mix, let's ban all religeons, let's burn and sack the churches, they are after all a form of drug addiction without any drugs and feh! who needs corporations, they just keep the profits to themselves, let's not tax the People, let's let the people own the fruits of their work, let's have the workers profit. Yes, and to make sure that the capitalist pigs don't come back, we'll institute government oversight of everything. While we're on the topic of healthcare, it seems to us that lots of people don't agree with the party's teachings. After all, what the party says is good for the people and for their benefit, therefore those who disagree with the party are evil capitalists, or more likely they simply need (re)education. So let's send them to our glorious mental clinics. And so that the People may prosper, let's institute a series of 5 year plans and great leap forwards... Sure they'll have to work hard and sacrifice themselves for a few years, but it's for the children and the future... Is this what you are after Nathan? Socialism/Communism? Well, in that case, I have a few words for you: ###### # # #### # # # # # # # # # ##### # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### #### # # ### # # #### # # ### # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # #### #### ### ##### # ###### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # ##### # ###### #### #### # # # # # ###### # # # # ## ## ## ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### #### # # # # # ###### #### #### # # # # # # # # # ## ## #### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### #### #### # # -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

...

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

You don't think very well then.

the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government.

Not in the United States of America it isn't.

...

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.

You have been completely brainwashed. You have a no idea what a "right" is.

...

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.

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else. This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

From: petro

...

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.

This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.

No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY. Typical anarcho/libertarian bullshit misprepresentation. And another prime example of 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. This is a perfect example of the failure of libertarian/anarcho thought, it is completely focused on the 'me'. When will you learn that free market economics is about the market and its stability and not the individuals attainment of nirvana. I'll answer my own question, never. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

...

From: petro

...

...

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.

This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.

No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY.

You're the "dipshit" that can't track a conversation. If you could, you would have noticed that it wasn't *me* that was making the assertion that one has a right to "be happy", I was poking at the original poster for his asserting that happiness is an entitlement.

Typical anarcho/libertarian bullshit misprepresentation. And another prime example of 'freedom for me, but not for thee'.

This is a perfect example of the failure of libertarian/anarcho thought, it is completely focused on the 'me'.

When will you learn that free market economics is about the market and its stability and not the individuals attainment of nirvana. I'll answer my own question, never.

This would have a lot more weight if you could follow a converstation. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:04:20AM -0700, petro wrote:

...

...

From: petro

...

...

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.

This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.

No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY.

You're the "dipshit" that can't track a conversation.

If you could, you would have noticed that it wasn't *me* that was making the assertion that one has a right to "be happy", I was poking at the original poster for his asserting that happiness is an entitlement.

Yes, this was my assertion. However, my assertion was accompanied by my stating that I really don't feel too sorry for the rich-ass Insurance Co. CEO. If his losing a small percentage of his millions causes him to be as unhappy as a poor person dying slowly of cancer, than I guess you have an argument. Yes, you could say that "happiness is subjective," and you would be right. However, I was stating "right to be happy" as a generalization, not as something concrete.

...

Typical anarcho/libertarian bullshit misprepresentation. And another prime example of 'freedom for me, but not for thee'.

This is a perfect example of the failure of libertarian/anarcho thought, it is completely focused on the 'me'.

When will you learn that free market economics is about the market and its stability and not the individuals attainment of nirvana. I'll answer my own question, never.

This would have a lot more weight if you could follow a converstation.

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/ iD8DBQE59n9g2FWyBZrQ84IRAqr4AJ9d47B2aTAvdjcTu4ZsOouLjEJsEgCgk4eK 7QnhHU2VnYPzUhWFMIi8ios= =Lvm8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote:

...

...

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

You don't think very well then.

Perhaps.

...

the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government.

Not in the United States of America it isn't.

Then what is the purpose of our government?

...

...

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.

You have been completely brainwashed.

You have a no idea what a "right" is.

OK, then, what is a "right"?

...

...

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.

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.

This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.

Not if it hurts someone else. Serial killers often get off on killing people. However, this hurts others, so it is outweighed. - -- 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/ iD8DBQE589xg2FWyBZrQ84IRAlhAAKCSOwvSW3aDedQlgBwkhJWxtc3sdACdEcK9 ou/ohPAVaoj2234e9KDMo/0= =K6Op -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 11:36 PM -0700 on 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

Then what is the purpose of our government?

To confiscate taxes by force, of course. ;-). So long, Nathan, and thanks for all the red herring... Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote:

...

...

...

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

You don't think very well then.

Perhaps.

...

...

the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government.

Not in the United States of America it isn't.

Then what is the purpose of our government?

www.constitution.org may help you.

...

...

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. You have been completely brainwashed. You have a no idea what a "right" is. OK, then, what is a "right"?

A thing which no one else has entitlement or authority to take away. What you confuse is that just having a *right* to something doesn't put the onus of responsibility on anyone (or society) to provide it. For instance, you *do* have a right to housing, but there is neither a responsibility on government/society to provide it for you, nor a responsibility on them to make sure you keep it once you have it. They are just not allowed to prevent you from acquiring it without violating the property rights of others. You have the right to happiness, but I don't have to make you happy. I am also not obligated modify my behavior to keep you happy, absent an obligation not to initiate force against you. In your little fantasy world a right is an entitlement. It ain't so.

...

...

...

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.

The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.

This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.

Not if it hurts someone else. Serial killers often get off on killing people. However, this hurts others, so it is outweighed.

There is a distinct difference between the initiation of force and withholding aid. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 08:53:59AM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

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.

Nobody dies without healthcare under our present system. Sadly, at least for those of extreme libertarian bent that make up the choir on this list, our society has chosen to pass laws that require hospitals and to some degree other medical treatment facilities to treat patients who cannot pay - mostly at their expense. ANYONE with a life threatening or even just very serious medical condition can walk into most any emergency room and get full medical treatment by law even if there is no insurance and no money to pay. For the most part this treatment is funded by hospitals by hidden (and sometimes partly overt) charges built into their fee structure - in effect we already are paying a tax in our present private insurance systems and Medicare/Medicaid (and especially for private cash paying patients who pay full rate and don't get the deep discounts that Medicare and HMOs negotiate from providers) that provides this last gasp safety net coverage to the indigent. Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.

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.

-- Dave Emery N1PRE, die@die.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18

On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:41:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 1:10 AM -0400 10/23/00, Dave Emery wrote:

...

Nobody dies without healthcare under our present system.

Actually, many people do. What planet have you been living on?

Many do not have insurance, and do not receive care for various ailments until it's too late. Many do not have insurance and do not have annual physicals, or mammograms, or prostate exams, or pap smears, or any of the hundreds of such things.

Some hospitals offers limited free services, some free clinics exist. But clearly many Americans are not receiving such care. And of course these "free services" are often a huge distance from _good_ healthcare. So much for "nobody dies without healthcare."

I said healthcare. Not good healthcare, or even adaquate healthcare (though in fact substantially better than almost anyone got perhaps 50 years ago or most get in the third world today). With certain minor circumstantial exceptions people need not die without benefit of significant health care resources in this society. True they are unlikely to have received much proactive care (often a major problem for the system since treating them after the fact is greatly more expensive), and true that many poor and especially working poor uninsured people deny themselves treatment that might save their lives until its too late because they don't want to or even understand the need of allocating their very scarce resources to seeking medical treatment until they are very sick. But there is a minimal safety net in place, and while many do die from receiving inadaquate and too late treatment not very many are pushed out the door to die in the streets. But this raises the obvious question of what should society do, if indeed society as a whole 'should' do anything - I assert that no economic or political system is ever going to supply ideal "_good_" healthcare to those at the margins, so all of this is a question of how much freedom we are willing to give up and how great a burden we are willing to assume to push closer to adaquate health care for everybody. Certainly a classical libertarian society might supply a whole lot less health care of last resort to those too lazy, too stupid, too weak, too crippled by circumstance to take prudent steps to provide it for themselves. Some would even argue that this is appropriate.

This is not true. Again, I have to question your connection to current events. Surely you have heard of folks being turned away at emergency room entrances and shipped off to the "public hospital"? There are many cases in many cities where people died in ambulances that had been turned away at the _nearest_ (or _better_) hospital and sent off on a 30-minute ambulance or taxicab ride to the "public" hospital in town.

I live in a very liberal state, where there are laws against this practice. I have heard it is more common elsewhere.

Again, I am not advocating that medicine be socialized or that hospitals be forced to treat those they choose not to treat.

(Were it my hospital, I would not think highly of Men with Guns telling me I must give $10,000 worth of ER services to someone who won't pay me back and who has no insurance.)

OK, so you would turn them out to die in the streets. Or at least want to believe that if you didn't it had been a voluntary act of charity rather than something forced on you as a social obligation.

...

Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.

Yes...so?

Whether or not you view this as bad depends on your very basic views about the social compact and fairness - is it just bad luck and tough sushi for the poor unfortunate or should we as a society offer at least some safe harbor for those who drew the short straws ? And if we do offer such, how much of our collective wealth should we spend on it - .005%, 0.5% 1 %, 5%, 35% ? And how should we decide this ? And what happens in a world in which the mechanisms by which we express such sentiments erode as states wither... -- Dave Emery N1PRE, die@die.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18

At 3:25 AM -0400 10/23/00, Dave Emery wrote:

Whether or not you view this as bad depends on your very basic views about the social compact and fairness - is it just bad luck and tough sushi for the poor unfortunate or should we as a society offer at least some safe harbor for those who drew the short straws ?

My opinion on this is: No, we should not, as a society, offer any "safe harbor to those that draw the short straws". If you (as an individual) feel that these people should be helped, then you should help them. You are of course welcome to join with other like minded people and form a "Indigent Aid Society" to help them in larger numbers. Myself, I feel no compulsion to help "people". My help is directed at individuals, whom I have personal knowledge of. I don't contract out my charity to some faceless bureaucrat.

And if we do offer such, how much of our collective wealth should we spend on it - .005%, 0.5% 1 %, 5%, 35% ? And how should we decide this ?

That one's easy. As much as each person wants to spend, individually decided. If you want to spend 90% of your wealth on this, that your business.

And what happens in a world in which the mechanisms by which we express such sentiments erode as states wither...

Before the state got into the "do-gooding" business, there were many more private charities. Most of them couldn't compete with the state-sponsored ones, for obvious reasons. -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu

At 10:35 PM -0700 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

This is true in theory. However, from what I have read, it appears that the care given to these people is far from the quality of care given to those who can pay. Also, many diseases require very expensive treatments, and I do not believe the hospitals are required to pay for these.

As I wrote in my previous article, IT IS NOT TRUE that private hospitals must accept all those who appear at their doorstep. This would be a "taking," and is not constitutionally permissable. It may be that _some_ private hospitals take in _some_ emergency room cases, but they are not "required" to. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 10:35 PM -0700 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

This is true in theory. However, from what I have read, it appears that the care given to these people is far from the quality of care given to those who can pay. Also, many diseases require very expensive treatments, and I do not believe the hospitals are required to pay for these.

As I wrote in my previous article, IT IS NOT TRUE that private hospitals must accept all those who appear at their doorstep. This would be a "taking," and is not constitutionally permissable.

It may be that _some_ private hospitals take in _some_ emergency room cases, but they are not "required" to.

This may have been a state law in Missouri, but I swear I heard reference to a similar law in Illinois. I would be surprised that it was not the case in the peoples republic of California. *ALL* hospitals are required to provide at least stabilization and transport to an appropriate facility to critically wounded or ill patients. The are not required to admit them for inpatient treatment, but they are not allowed to let them die in the street either. These kinds of laws are good in at least one respect--they make sure that if you forget your insurance credentials, or are otherwise unable to present them, you get treated anyway. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, petro wrote:

...

Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.

Nonsense.

If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. They could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her insurance for *all* other illnesses.

Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just* for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues.

But they AREN'T deregulated, at least not yet. In any case, the debate was about what companies should do NOW, not about what they would/could/should do in the as-of-now imaginary world of total deregulation. I can't debate about the deregulation of insurance, because I'm not well-read on that subject.

That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner"

Come on, now. Our disagreement doesn't automatically classify me as a "thoughtless whiner." I have thought about these issues; I just haven't reached the same conclusions you have.

and Sambo A. S. seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for everyone else.

The costs for the few would rise much more than the savings for the many. Therefore, the number of people with genetic abnormalities who could not afford insurance would rise, while the number of genetically normal people who could afford insurance would not be altered drastically. - -- 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/ iD8DBQE5898B2FWyBZrQ84IRAvTNAJ9+Dab+VNta322ce9EhpYrIND8K7wCgh7V7 62a56LaHJXOd3OTbvcb2qYI= =bTE+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, petro wrote:

...

Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.

Nonsense.

It's not? Demonstrate where Libertarian or Anarchic ideals take care of this person even in principle? Explain how they're not turned away and left to die? And don't invoke the old 'somebody will take care of them' bullshit. Because it is clear today that many people don't get taken care of at all. Explain why moving to such a system will empower the mild of human kindness in these sad souls?

If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies.

They could, but they're not stupid. In a un-regulated market the insurance companies will focus on profits alone and that unfortuantely (and much to the chagrin of the libertarian/anarchy crowd) means that there will actualy be LESS insurance available and it will exist at a higher cost.

They could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her insurance for *all* other illnesses.

This can be done today legaly, the question is whether the newer more accurate technologies should be used. NOT wether such policies can be written.

Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just* for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues.

Leving her free to die, that ungrateful irresponsible bitch (for getting cancer that is).

That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner" and Sambo A. S. seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for everyone else.

No, it means savings for the insurance company. It is clear that history shows that unregulated markets do not in general move to a minimum in costs and servicability. Hell, look at the aircraft industry for contrary evidence. And what you seem to miss is that your 'free market' theory is screwed for the simple reason that real life doesn't conform to free market theory without some major modifications (that happen to require at least light regulation). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, petro wrote:

...

...

Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.

Nonsense.

It's not? Demonstrate where Libertarian or Anarchic ideals take care of this person even in principle? Explain how they're not turned away and left to die?

I did, and you brought up the reason why yourself:

And don't invoke the old 'somebody will take care of them' bullshit. Because it is clear today that many people don't get taken care of at all.

Explain why moving to such a system will empower the mild of human kindness in these sad souls?

It's not kindness, it's *for the money*. If I (as Evil Insurance Inc) can make money selling a policy, I am going to do it. If you have a genetic pre-dispositing to, say, Brain Cancer, and I can write a policy that says I cover you for everything *BUT* that, why shouldn't I? Yes, it might be inordinately expensive for you to get a policy that *does* cover brain cancer, but you will be covered for lung cancer (unless you choose to smoke), testicular cancer or Alzheimer's disease. I can make money, so I will.

...

If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies.

They could, but they're not stupid. In a un-regulated market the insurance companies will focus on profits alone and that unfortuantely (and much to the chagrin of the libertarian/anarchy crowd) means that there will actualy be LESS insurance available and it will exist at a higher cost.

How so? Insurance companies make money 2 ways. First is through a slight profit on their premiums. The second is through *investing* that money. If they can invest wisely--and they should be able to after all, they're in it for the profits--and properly balance the payouts v.s. premiums equation--and they should, they've been doing it long enough--they should have no problems. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

At 12:33 AM 10/22/00 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

...

So these people are entitled to something for nothing? (or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?

That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?

You're trolling, aren't you?

Insurance is a good idea for the insured because it takes money to make money.

On the topic of risk and insurance, and apropos discussion of reading lists, cypherpunks may find the book "Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk" by Peter Bernstein of interest. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:

The book I recommended a week or two ago, Judea Pearl's "Causality," is much more advanced in its mathematics. (But the math is important if one is actually trying to construct the causality diagrams Pearl is talking about.)

Would it be too much to ask you to recant the main point made? It sounds pretty interesting... Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:

...

recant

"Recount", right?

So right it hurts. GOD!

Asking Tim, or anyone else here for that matter, me included, to recant something, is, of course, an invitation to verbal violence. :-).

You can say that again. For less, even, as I well know. Every once in a while I just hate not being a native. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:

I support this recommendation. A readable book for the layman (most of us), on a par with past classics like "Lying with Statistics" and "Lady Luck." Available in a trade paperback for about $15 or so.

The book I recommended a week or two ago, Judea Pearl's "Causality," is much more advanced in its mathematics. (But the math is important if one is actually trying to construct the causality diagrams Pearl is talking about.)

What I find funny about Tim's reading recomendation is that the vast majority don't back his anarchic claims and he has been unable over the years to use these self-same references to demonstrate his point. Hayek is a perfect point. Tim, draw us a causality diagram that demonstrates crypto-anarcy actualy works... ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

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.>>

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.

Hand-waving. Get some numbers and crunch them. (No, I don't have them at hand, either, but I'm not making claims about the ability of any corporation to profit under any arbitrary rules I wish to set.)

Also, people cannot simply create insurance companies. Breaking into the healthcare business is damn near impossible <snip the rest of the sentence>

This is the only thing you've written with which I agree. But it's an argument for _less_ government intervention rather than more.

And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.

Eh? I've been uninsured for maybe half of my adult life. On such occasions as I need medical care, I simply pay for it. Cash or check, they'll take it all. 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? 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. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net

Nathan Saper wrote:

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.

The fact that it's not the insuree's fault does _not_ mean that it's the insurer's fault. Said another way, the insurance company has no additional responsibility to (WLOG) me because I have a genetic defect. However, you're proposing that the insurance company endeavor to waste money on those who are known to be "losers" as far as insurance goes. You as a smoker should be the most outraged in such a situation; the strict standards that keep you from getting insurance at a good rate do not apply to me because my elevated risk for e.g. heart disease has a different source. It's not the cause of the risk that concerns the insurance companies, it's the existance of the risk. That's all they need judge upon, and any interference by the government saying otherwise is an unreasonable burden on private enterprise.

Fine. I'll try to find some numbers. I don't have any off the top of my head, though. It just seems that because A) the insurance companies make good profits and B) the number of people denied coverage based upon genetic abnormalities is fairly small, it wouldn't affect them too much.

"It won't hurt them _that_much_ to lose a little money on these people; thus, they should be forced to do so." Preposterous.

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.

Still not the insurance company's fault. They're not there to save my sorry, genetically defective ass, they're there to make money.

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.

Right. And if they're forced to insure people who are money sinks for them, everyone's rates go up, because the total amount of risk the insurance company takes (expressed as the amount of money they pay out as claims) plus their profit must equal the amount of money they make on premiums. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

Sampo A Syreeni wrote:

Which speaks right into the socialist cause - we thus need an instance to take care of the many genetically defective asses out there, without concern for money.

How so? In most cases, the genetic defects that we're discussing are not those that produce three heads and a heart the size of a watermelon; insurance companies don't need any tests to know they're not insuring such a person. The things we're concerned with are conditions such as a familial tendency towards heart disease or a possibility of developing diabetes later in life. For the most part, they're not things that prevent people from holding jobs and having money. I see a possibility for the equivalent of high-risk vehicular insurance for people who have genetic defects as genetic testing for insurance purposes becomes more common. Just as some companies specialize in insuring those who have showed themselves to have shitty driving records, health insurance companies who have high-rate, high-risk policies will become more common. Sure, it'll be more expensive for people who have serious genetic problems to get coverage, but it's certainly the case that it's more expensive to provide _care_, so the expense is not unjust. In light of this, my question is the following: Why do you believe that those who are born with genetic problems have additional entitlements that the rest of us don't have? Alternatively, attempt to justify placing the burden for healthcare of a particular person with genetic defects on any of the following: (a) that person (b) insurance companies (c) taxpayers

OK. So how about preventative care? It might well be that by insuring everyone and keeping them in health, the total risk per dollars paid for coverage actually goes down. Especially if infectious diseases can be kept in check. Plus, the sum total of money paid by the insurees goes up as they stay healthier for longer, thus giving more money for the insurance company to invest into more profitable ventures. This is what governments do now.

Even if it is the case that preventative care would be cheaper, then it's just stupidity on the part of the insurance company not to invest this way; this does not justify government intervention ("You're not running your business right; let us help!" would sound strange coming from the U.S. government, anyway). However, I reject that it is the case that additional preventative care would do anything. Currently, most insurance companies I know of will pay for flu shots and things along those lines. What else do you want? We could cover your arm in a cast so that it doesn't get broken, but I'm not sure if you'd really like that. I can't produce any hard figures on frivolous hospital visits, but my feeling (having lived in a family of medical people) is that any additional preventative care that the insurance companies attempted to provide would only end up encouraging hypochondriacs to go to their doctor or hospital on the slightest whim. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

At 1:31 AM +0300 10/21/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

...

not insuring such a person. The things we're concerned with are conditions such as a familial tendency towards heart disease or a possibility of developing diabetes later in life. For the most part, they're not things that prevent people from holding jobs and having money.

Which is precisely why there is no reason these people should not have their insurance at precisely the same rate as everybody else - you cannot foresee whether any particular individual will get the disease.

You need to brush up on "probabalistic reasoning." If you think "you cannot foresee..." when a family history or genetic test suggests one _can_ make money by betting, then you simply have a very poor intuition about odds, statistics, and gambling. As with Saper, the rest of your stuff is not even worth replying to. ---Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, petro wrote:

How are you going to make sure that people do the things that make them healthy?

Why should you? Whoever said effectiveness is a requirement?

Believe it or not, not all people in this world are hardworking. Not all people in this world are willing to put forth much effort at all, especially for long term issues like health.

I certainly am not. I worry about sickness when it comes, and if it's bad enough, suicide is painless.

So how are you going to make sure that people do the things they need to do to keep them healthy? Pass laws?

Usually people's decisions on matters related to health have little to do with the expected cost of getting ill. Not one of the people I know exercise to save money. They exercise to have fun, feel good, look good and to not get sick, which is generally unpleasant regardless of cost. Generally I know few people which are not in exceptional health. Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:

The point is, it's not fair to punish someone for a genetic defect that isn't his or her fault.

What has fairness got to do with it? People are born with genetic defects; it's manifestly unfair, but it's true. Insurers are in business to make money, and their business model must reflect truth. Risk is Risk. Doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. If you want to make donations to the care of people who can't afford coverage or health care (who probably include some of the folk with genetic defects), do that through a charity. Whether they have money or not, you have no right to rob the stockholders in the insurance company in order to fund your pet charity. Bear

Steve Furlong wrote: Something seems to have gone wrong in transmission. The paragraph near the end which starts:

coverage for a given malady times the expected likelihood of that

should read: coverage for a given malady times the expected likelihood of that malady) had better be lower than the sum of the premiums paid, or they won't stay in business long. Forcing an insurer to accept an expected-high-cost customer at an "affordable" premium either drives up the premiums for everyone, causes a reduction in services for everyone (or a particular subgroup, but that would probably cause more trouble in the long run), or eats into insurer's bottom line. One expected-high-cost customer wouldn't break the insurer, but there's never just one. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:30:40AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

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.

Most of the genetic factors against which insurance companies _might_ discriminate are predispositions. The factors _tend_ to make one _more susceptible_ to heart blow-outs, for instance.

Where do you draw the line between factors which the prospective insured can control and those he cannot? If all of your grandparents died of lung cancer, was it because they had a genetic flaw, because they smoked three packs a day, because they lived near a coal mine, or some combination of the above? How much responsibility for their deaths should they shoulder?

They discriminate based on _genetic predispositions_. Those are not affected by environment (except in extreme cases).

...

Fine. I'll try to find some numbers. I don't have any off the top of my head, though. It just seems that because A) the insurance companies make good profits and B) the number of people denied coverage based upon genetic abnormalities is fairly small, it wouldn't affect them too much.

I'm strongly suspicious of any statement that contains "It just seems that". Every discipline from engineering to economics shows time and again that the "obvious" conclusions are often wrong. Usually wrong, I suspect, but I don't have numbers to back that up. <g>

...

...

...

Also, people cannot simply create insurance companies. Breaking into the healthcare business is damn near impossible <snip the rest of the sentence>

This is the only thing you've written with which I agree. But it's an argument for _less_ government intervention rather than more.

I don't really see it as an argument for either side. Breaking into the medical industry is so difficult because there is an entire infrastructure that is developed around the established corporations, and this infrastructure isn't very flexible.

In the absense of regulation, an insurance company could form by putting a pile of money in escrow and getting some customers. Yes, the practical need for a pile of money would shut out most people, but it would be a lower barrier than the current regulatory mess. In a free market the encrusting infrastructure could be blown away in one step by a single insurer.

Perhaps. But, again, an insurance company won't insure people with genetic defects unless they are forced to. Sure, we may have more insurance companies after deregulation, but who's to say that they would fill the need for insurance for the genetically disabled?

...

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. ... 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.

The individual purchasing insurance is (a) betting that he'll have needs which cause him to draw out more than he put in, (b) concealing information from the insurer such that he _knows_ he'll be drawing out more than he put it, or (c) wanting or needing catastrophic coverage even though he expects to put in more than he takes out.

Company-provided plans are a whole 'nother matter; ignore them for now.

coverage for a given malady times the expected likelihood of that malady) had better be lower than the sum of the premiums paid, or they won't stay in business long. Forcing an insurer to accept an expected-high-cost customer at an "affordable" premium either drives up the premiums for everyone, causes a reduction in services for everyone (or a particular subgroup, but that would probably cause more trouble in the long run), or eats into insurer's bottom line. One expected-high-cost customer wouldn't break the insurer, but there's never just one.

If you combine a slightly reduced profit for the insurer, and slightly higher premiums, the costs could be covered. And I'd be willing to pay slightly higher premiums, if it paid for people who need medical care to be able to have it.

By the way, you don't need to email a private copy of messages you send to a mailing list. This isn't Usenet. The private copy and the list copy usually arrive within minutes of each other.

OK.

- -- 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 iD8DBQE58LDv2FWyBZrQ84IRAm+EAJ9VeWSOhB9APycGVIWA81YGTMCwBwCdFEh/ OpqM3avMk315zIAIgJ8zlPQ= =0UpW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:26:48PM -0500, Kevin Elliott wrote:

At 22:42 -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

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.

BAHHHHHHHHHHH....LOL.... God, that's the funniest thing I've ever read. BY DEFINITION, care is cheaper that coverage in the average case. You've already told us how the insurance companies have managed to aquire billions in profits. Where do you think they got them? They looked at the numbers and realized that for a sufficiently large group of people the cost of paying that groups medical bills will be less than the amount that groups members will be willing to pay on a monthly basis to own a safety net.

Not for catastrophic medical problems. Insurance companies make profits because most people who have insurance end up not having huge medical problems. Those who do, however, often get out more than they put in. - -- 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 iD8DBQE58LfO2FWyBZrQ84IRAhJFAJsFc2TKtqdAwtzJhb6j4siZqgOtHACgu3Po l+Fj4r4YIgBKagpJNVccZBs= =jrp/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

So? Where is it mandated that they cover those? In fact, display proof that they *DON'T*. Most children--which is where genetic "abnormalities" show up--are covered often sight unseen through their parents policies, and often before they are even conceived.

Also, people cannot simply create insurance companies. Breaking into the healthcare business is damn near impossible, unless you have established relationships inside the industry.

No, you have to have (a) big chunks of assets, and (b) follow some *EXTREMELY* thick government rules. It's the government stupid.

And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage.

Huh? How does denial of coverage prevent them from paying? Oh, you must not have meant what you wrote. You must have meant "many people who are denied coverage are denied treatment since they don't have health care". Guess why? Government again. If I have a health care bill, and pay even a *TINY* bit on it--like $10 a month, the creditor cannot file negative reports against me, cannot come after me legally etc. even if I owed 20k in medical bills. (you do the math on how long it takes to pay off 20k at $10 a month). Therefore, the hospitals know that for anything less than life threatening treatment, it's a losing battle to provide treatment to those without the demonstrated means to pay. Medicine is not a commodity, but it's *still* a business. It has to be. -- 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

The Red Sed:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:23:32AM -0700, petro wrote:

...

Most children--which is where genetic "abnormalities" show up--are covered often sight unseen through their parents policies, and often before they are even conceived.

OK. This lowers the amount of people the companies would be discriminating aginst. Therefore, the insurance company is saving less money. Therefore, we have more reason to force them to insure said people, if it affects them less.

That is completely disconnected, and illogical. We have no reason to force insurance companies to do anything other than honor the contracts which they have signed.

...

Medicine is not a commodity, but it's *still* a business. It has to be.

Why does it have to be a business?

Because everything is a business. Everything. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

At 12:25 PM -0700 10/19/00, David Honig wrote:

At 05:48 PM 10/18/00 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

So are you saying that there is nothing wrong with the government doing the corporations' dirty work?

A govt has an obligation to secure the data it has collected and not to share it. So perhaps we agree on this point: the govt must not give out (do 'dirty work') data on citizens that it holds. If an insurance (or bank or grocery or whatever) co. wants data, they can't expect it from the govt.

[Hmm... I hadn't thought about the morality of terraserver.. where you can get pictures of your neighbors lots, taken by the govt]

This issue has been discussed recently, in some newspaper articles. (Don't have a URL, as I was reading it casually, elsewhere.) It turned out that the government high-res photos were ideal for burglars to use to case properties for break-ins, to identify unsecured property in backyards, etc. And it's not a function of government to snoop like this, the Supreme Court's rulings notwithstanding. Ironically, when private actors do things like this, one can count on various government types to rush in with denunciations and lawsuits. Sort of the way the government cracks down on polluting vehicles while school districts and public bus agencies run the worst-polluting vehicles. Or the pension plans which Congress exempts itself from. Government always cracks own on others and exempts itself. Nothing surprising. We just shouldn't let it happen. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

-- At 02:34 PM 10/15/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

...

IMHO, the NSA has enough expertise and technology to crack just about any cipher out there.

James A. Donald:

...

No it does not.

The expertise of the NSA, great though it is, is small compared to the expertise outside the NSA.

At 10:26 PM 10/15/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

Assuming we can evaluate accurately the magnitude of what goes on inside the NSA...

I know vastly more about cryptography than you do, and people who know vastly more about cryptography than I are confident that codes that pass lengthy peer review by themselves and people as good as they are, are unlikely to be broken by the NSA. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ZlLhlzxncCnQOkHB8te81wDKtqWhcCTT3ldo+CKM 4lKVCVGVGO8ePP0CTWjDpfM+MInzJaH477ddm+DDY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:30:54AM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, James A.. Donald wrote:

...

Have you been sealed in a box the last ten years? Companies may send you junk mail. Governments will confiscate your property and put you in jail,.

Not to mention the newer trend of governments doing the dirty work for the companies, all in the name of 'national security' or 'strategic advantage'...

That, too.

Sampo Syreeni , aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

- -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE566P12FWyBZrQ84IRAugZAKC9Y547bL2wlsbYnKdWoLwfMaGCVgCePux7 5JCBxqy2KF/dZxIpxXaztR4= =VgTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 12:09:08PM +0200, Tom Vogt wrote:

"James A.. Donald" wrote:

...

...

As much as that may suck, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Besides, in the new world of globalization, I think we should be worrying more about corporations than about the NSA.

Have you been sealed in a box the last ten years? Companies may send you junk mail. Governments will confiscate your property and put you in jail,.

seems there's two people who spent the last century or so in a box. companies buy/bribe/lobby governments into passing laws that will make the government throw you in jail (on the expense of the gov) in case you anger the corp.

MPAA/DVDCCA vs. The Internet, anyone?

There's that, as well as the fact that if a company is rich/powerful enough, it can do practically whatever the fuck it wants, without much fear of reprisal.

- -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE566Sl2FWyBZrQ84IRAoFMAJ9+q2Bjhc+PFo2L/dzjgZaonos+VQCeLYEG Kx+7cL3TyfO7pExwHCMOfu4= =RKgz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:12:53PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 2:34 PM -0700 10/15/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 05:28:19PM -0400, Jordan Dimov wrote:

...

I don't know much about crypto politics, but... isn't it utterly obvious that the mere fact that the NSA suggest a certain algorithm (say Rijndael) for a national standard and recomends its use internationally imply that they have a pretty darn good idea (if not actual technology) on how to break it efficiently? I just don't see why else they would advocate its use. After all isn't the fact that NSA could break DES since the 70's the reason for the 'success' of DES?

IMHO, the NSA has enough expertise and technology to crack just about any cipher out there. As much as that may suck, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Besides, in the new world of globalization, I think we should be worrying more about corporations than about the NSA.

What is the basis for this claim about the NSA having such expertise and technology? Paranoia, ESP, cluelessness, or actual knowledge?

Speculation, nothing more. Notice the "IMHO" above. I'm not claiming to be stating facts.

Do you believe, for example, that the NSA knows how to factor very large numbers?

Do you believe they have a dramatically faster factoring algorithm than any mathematicians suspect exists?

I would also ask if you think the NSA has some hidden supply of computers, except we both know there aren't enough places in the solar system to park the numbers they would need to brute force readily-attainable key sizes.

So, could you explain your first comment?

Most crypto algorithms are mathematically sound. I'm not worried about the NSA finding some miraculous way to factor large numbers. I'm worried about the NSA discovering security bugs in crypto tools. Just a few days ago, a bug was discovered in GnuPG that allowed for clearsigned texts to be altered with the signatures remaining valid. And, of course, there was the ADK bug in PGP. These aren't technically bugs in cipher algorithms, but most mere mortals, such as myself, utilize algorithms through security software that may be, and very likely is, buggy.

After that we can move on to your "fear the corporations, not the government" bit of cluelessness.

- -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE568xk2FWyBZrQ84IRAvuwAJ0UdPIaYcZp3s5C0A84sVtJ0/FsSwCfYdJj tFCmnlThhfRjpP05ODUX4Xk= =PyeZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:27:07PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 8:50 PM -0700 10/16/00, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:12:53PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

...

What is the basis for this claim about the NSA having such expertise and technology? Paranoia, ESP, cluelessness, or actual knowledge?

Speculation, nothing more. Notice the "IMHO" above. I'm not claiming to be stating facts.

I asked you to provide some _basis_ for your claim, not to quibble about "not claiming to be stating facts."

Fine. My basis for my claim is that the NSA is the best funded and best equiped electronic intelligence agency in the world, and they have employed some of the smartest people in the world.

...

Most crypto algorithms are mathematically sound. I'm not worried about the NSA finding some miraculous way to factor large numbers. I'm worried about the NSA discovering security bugs in crypto tools.

Recall that your precise words were:

"IMHO, the NSA has enough expertise and technology to crack just about any cipher out there."

Fine, I'm guilty of not adequately proofreading my emails. Sue me.

This is a claim about _ciphers_, a claim often made by the clueless. ("Any cipher can be broken...," "The NSA has more than enough computer power...," are the most common variants.)

Fine, it's a claim made by the clueless. I'm not claiming to be something other than clueless, but I am claiming to have not meant what I sent to this list. Again, not a good proofreader. Again, sue me.

You are a twit.

You know me only from about 4 posts to this list. Hardly evidence enough to evaluate my qualification as a twit. Get off your fucking high horse.

- -- 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 v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE569ln2FWyBZrQ84IRAgnoAJ9FYhZmiQY+tSI7Mu2ap0XzazQcVwCfQYl9 i9Vj1AtUfv4teJS8PtoJfjo= =Ru39 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:

Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Fine. My basis for my claim is that the NSA is the best funded and best equiped electronic intelligence agency in the world, and they have employed some of the smartest people in the world.

And the NASA is the best funded and best equiped rocket-launching agency in the world, and they also have employed some of the smartest people in the world, but they can't make a spaceship that will go faster than light. Ot that could get humans to Saturn and back anytime in the next 20 years.

Smart people and large funding don't repeal the laws of nature.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no essential physical law that determines computing power, exploits of algorithms, etc. The same cannot be said for speed-of-light travel.

Ken

- -- 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 iD8DBQE57PEY2FWyBZrQ84IRAjoPAKC+9sioTAZvzsNUVu8tJ79LQ1zfUQCeIXo1 F57fGPOFCUjCQvTBRy43KBU= =y5Q+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:38:57AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:46:25PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:

...

Fine. My basis for my claim is that the NSA is the best funded and best equiped electronic intelligence agency in the world, and they have employed some of the smartest people in the world.

Sorry, but this is hand-waving. There are smart people outside the NSA and there is money outside the NSA.

Understood. But the NSA's budget is somewhat higher than most crypto think-tanks.

...

Fine, it's a claim made by the clueless. I'm not claiming to be something other than clueless, but I am claiming to have not meant what I sent to this list. Again, not a good proofreader. Again, sue me.

No, you'll just be ridiculed instead. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have not provided it.

Why aren't people understanding that I'm not saying that the NSA has found a miraculous way to break ciphers? They may have, I don't know. The point is, when I said they could break "ciphers," I should have said "cipher implementations." I.E. software that does cryptography. Software is damn near always buggy. Look, people, you can continue to ridicule me for what I said earlier, but it would be a waste of time. We're essentially agreeing.

Think of it from a longtime cypherpunk's perspective: We see people come in here and say the same thing as you every month or so, and offer much in the way of not-very-informed speculation but little in the way of proof.

-Declan

- -- 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 iD8DBQE57PJH2FWyBZrQ84IRApy8AJ41kUmWG4IrRjI8ZB1PrwFsvTZ7IgCgthRM nKECOGNb9Oq2VObLgcD+cbU= =dQJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----