CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

[Gil Hamilton]

Nathan Saper gropes:

>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.

So, by extension, people who are 98 years old should be able to
purchase life or health insurance at the same rates as those who
are 22 years old.  After all, they have no control over their age.

Your position is internally inconsistent as well as dishonest and
unfair.  If you believe that people are entitled to medical care
simply because they exist, then at least admit that to yourself
and advocate that government should provide it through tax
collections.

The "Big Rich Insurance Company Who Can Afford It" is simply passing
the costs on to the rest of us anyway.  But why should this burden
be placed on the managers and stock holders of the insurance company?
It isn't *their* fault that the prospective insured has a genetic
predisposition to heart disease (or whatever).


> > > 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.

The poor old widow whose mutual fund owns the insurance company
stock is being deprived of income thanks to your mandate.  How
is that fair?



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

> > 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?
>
>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.

Again, this is being dishonest.  Coverage is less expensive than
care only because *someone else is paying for it*. It is the care
that is needed, not "coverage".  Mandated "coverage" is simply
care that someone else is being required to provide.  Any insurance
company obviously prefers to minimize "coverage" that *it knows*
is going to require care to be paid for.


> > 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.
> >
>
>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.

No.  The idea of insurance is to *insure* yourself (and family,
etc.) against unexpected catastrophic losses by pooling risk.

This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's
insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a
bad idea.  People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in
year-out health care.  Insurance should only enter the picture if
"large" unexpected expenses are incurred.  This type of insurance
would have a huge positive effect on health care prices in this
country.  Prices keep spiraling upward because the individual
doesn't have any incentive to control costs.  The individual's
only motivation is, as you stated, "get out more than you put in".

Since the individual is not motivated to control costs, neither
is the doctor (excluding HMOs which are an effect of this whole
issue).  Given an unknown condition, the doctor is inclined to
order any test or administer any treatment that *might* be
beneficial, no matter how unlikely.  After all, this covers his
ass: the more tests or treatments tried, the less likely the
doctor is to be sued for "negligently" failing to consider an
option.

- GH

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.