At 08:53 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:

...

No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with nationalized social medicine.

No, I am not confusing medical insurance with socialized medicine or anything else. I mentioned life insurance on purpose. That is a bet on when I will die, they bet later, I bet earlier. Money can be made - although never by me unless I cheat.

Not at all. Much like gambling, sometimes you win "randomly" if you stop playing after that. "Random" is a word that means "ignorance" and both you and the insurer are ignorant about your true lifespan. You only play the life-insurance game once :-)

Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head to the nearest emergency room.

One person's need does not make another a slave. BTW One could argue that driver's insurance is *more* necessary than medical insurance, because to exist daily you need to drive. But again, need and slaves.

Well, you probably don't need to explain the problems of socialized medicine, but I would like to hear about how you will do your own X-Rays or chemotherapy.

Some pay cash. You can do without car insurance if you post a bond. Others depend on *voluntary* charity --though nowadays this competes with compulsory (taxed) welfare.

Not any more. See life insurance. Also, please keep in mind that insurance compnaies do not make their money from premiums, but from investments of all the premiums they collect and hold. Your model is not correct.

You forget that if the insurer bets wrong, they have to pay up and cash in their investments. For certain investments, premature withdrawl costs more than sitting on the cash. Otherwise, like banks, or landlords with deposits, or other putatively free agents, insurers are free to do with their funds as they please. So long as they hold up their end of the contracts they've entered.

The rock climber will probably not have that heart attack.

FWIW, the rock climber's choice of ancestors (!) has more to do with their heart attack (etc) risk than their choice of avocation.

...

(There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. Think about it.)

This scenario of testing for specific genes is already underway. Stay tuned.

The flip side of Tim's comment is that you can pay extra for things you are at risk for. In a truly free market, insurers would offer packages customized to your risk. Genomic tendancy towards X? Pay more, get more ---including max payout. Little tendancy towards Y? Pay less. Rational people follow Pascal --you include probability in your reasoning about costs. Of course, in a free society, you are free to be irrational, too. (And consume whatever, and enjoy masochism, etc.) [oblig] Those who would constrain those freedoms have earned killing.