CDR: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?

[Ray Dillinger]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:

>It's not a zero-sum game for the insurance companies. Most insurance
>companies make  quite a bit of money investing premiums.

Yes, and so could their clients if not doing business with the 
insurance companies.

>In addition, they spread the risk. They are betting that more people will
>stay well than get sick.

Yes.  

>And I'm not talking about people "engaging in risky behavior". I'm talking
>about someone who has a genetic predisposition for a disease THAT THEY HAVE
>NO ABILITY TO MITIGATE.

Hey, I engage in risky behavior three times a week.  I'm in 
an open relationship with a bisexual.  I weigh nearly 400 
pounds, eat lots of starchy and oily foods, and engage in 
rough sports.  I had a broken foot a few years ago when I 
dropped a caber on my foot for example. I also go swimming naked 
in the pacific off the marin coast, where there are occasional 
sharks and the water is so cold that most normal people go into 
shock if they try it without a wetsuit.  I could mitigate these 
risks, but I don't want to.

But whether they're risks I could mitigate or not still has 
nothing to do with what level of risk is *REAL* in my life. 
Mitigable or not, these risks are real.  So is the risk of 
someone who is born with a wonky gene that makes him or her 
susceptible to cancer.  Why should that person, who has the 
same level of risk I do, get a substantially better deal
than me?  What financial motive would an insurance company 
have for offering two people with identical amounts of risk 
substantially different rates? 

If I am a bad risk because of a behavior I choose, then I 
am a bad risk and that affects the odds at which my health 
should be bet. If Alice is a bad risk because of a genetic 
predisposition to cancer, then she is a bad risk and that 
affects the odds at which her health should be bet.

What's the disconnect here?  Why do you think that the 
*causes* of risk are somehow more important in determining 
odds than the *fact* of risk?  

>I have no problem charging someone who smokes, takes drugs, or over eats.
>THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

We have a choice, but so what?  Higher risk is higher risk. 
Choices have nothing to do with that.  And there's no point 
in pretending that these "choices" are equally easy for 
everybody either.  The biggest factor in determining risk 
for alcoholism is still heredity.  If your parents were 
alkies, you're probably quite susceptible to it yourself. 
Likewise, neither of my parents was skinny nor celibate.

			Bear