CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

Steve Furlong sfurlong at acmenet.net
Wed Oct 18 22:23:19 PDT 2000


Nathan Saper wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:36:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > "What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is
> > willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
> >
> > Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he
> > expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to
> > pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits.
> > Insurance is
> > gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
> 
> 1) Insurance is a very profitable business.  I don't feel sorry for a
> CEO of an insurance company making millions each year.  They can
> afford to insure people that MAY develop certain conditions later in
> life.

General Electric's Power Systems division is very profitable. Should it
start giving away its stock in trade to poor nations which "need" an
electric generation plant, regardless of the nation's prior
mismanagement which led to its inability to pay?


> 2) Notice the "MAY" above.  Insurance companies consider even the
> slightest risk grounds for denying coverage.

Bull. The overweight still get coverage.


> 3) Your food analogy above is flawed for several reasons.
>    a) If Bob has as much money as everyone else, he will be sold the
>    food.
>    b) If Bob, on the other hand, has a genetic abnormality that could
>    later lead to heart disease, he can be denied health coverage
>    regardless of his ability to pay the premium.
>    c) In the food example, charities, etc. can help Bob out.  In the
>    insurance area, he has no such help to fall back on.

In re b), Bob won't be denied health _care_, regardless of his genetic
abnormalities or actual medical history, provided that he pays for it.
Also, food and medical coverage are apples and oranges, to torture a
metaphor. There is an upper limit to what people spend on food, even
given unlimited resources. There seems to be _no_ upper limit on what
people will spend on medical care. This is exacerbated when costs are
shared.

In re c), what, you've never heard of free clinics? Hell, I've donated
piles (in terms of my net worth) of cash to clinics, on the premise that
helping to control VD will have a societal benefit in excess of many
other uses of the money. For that matter, when my son was born I noticed
that I had been assessed about $400 to help cover the medical costs of
the indigent. (Which pissed me off, since I wasn't notified beforehand
that the hospital would do that, nor given a chance to opt out, but
that's another topic.)


> > Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate.
> > Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade.
> 
> You haven't answered a single one of my emails without including a
> personal attack of some sort.  You're being an asshole, and that's not
> necessary.

Wow, you haven't been reading c-punks long. If Tim makes a personal
attack on you, it'll usually involve an observation that you should be
killed.

I would say that Tim's comment, above, is more an observation than an
attack. I agree with him completely, except that he doesn't go far
enough.

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






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list