CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

[Steve Furlong]

Tim May wrote:
> 
> At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
> >At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't
> >have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
...
> >If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or
> >self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
> 
> Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught
> that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request.

Yep, I wrote carelessly. I _said_ "demand" but I _meant_ that Bob would
refuse to deal with the insurance company unless they share what they
find. And I'm not so confident that the insurance company would be
paying for the test, as you suggested in your (snipped) scenario. I have
no experience with insurance plans which required you to get a physical
before they take you on; I've always had HMOs (or self insurance) since
I left the military. Who normally paid for the exams?


> >I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society.
...
> 
> And it increases overall costs by making people less sensitive to prices.

Plus the overhead and profits of the insurance company. I've stumped
several insurance salesmen, who claimed that I'd be saving money by
going with them, by asking how the total costs would go down if salesmen
and executives and other non-medical drones are getting paid. And the
wasted staff time in the doctors' office, filling out the five hundred
distinct insurance forms, contrasted with taking a handful of 20s and
giving me a receipt. No satisfactory answer in a couple dozen
contestants.

The tax code in the US is the only thing which makes medical insurance
cost less to consumers than self insurance. This is an argument, as if
another were needed, against the five million page federal tax code, or
whatever it's up to now.


-- 
Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere     Have GNU, will travel
   518-374-4720     sfurlong at acmenet.net