CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

[Steve Furlong]

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 at acmenet.net