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

[petro]

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
>
>>But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :).
>>The insurance company does.
>
>Say What?!  Sorry, no insurance company has the power to say who
>is and is not born with particular genetics.
>
>>I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who
>>smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough,
>>cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed.
>
>You speak as though the insurance companies business where arbitration
>of morals rather than arbitration of risks.  They can't make money
>arbitrating morals -- at least not without becoming religions.

	Sure they can. Moral!=religious.

	It is "immoral" to commit murder. Is this because God Says 
So, or because it's generally better for society if we can assume 
that the vast majority of people *won't* be trying to shoot us?

	It is "immoral" to steal. See above.

	When you look at many things that are "traditionally" immoral 
(by that I mean before modern socialism), they tend to have 1 thing 
in common. It is wrong to take what isn't yours (property, life etc.) 
without the blessing of the state.

	If we eliminate the state (Go state!, Go away!), we get "it 
is immoral to take what isn't yours".

	Consuming more than you produce is functionally the same 
thing. Short term illness and youth can be excused that in the long 
term you wind up either producing the same as you consume, or 
producing more.

	If it lasts long enough, illness can reverse that, as can 
things like certain addictions etc.

	Insurance companies--in a free market--would reward those who 
acted "morally"--those who took steps to minimize their 
non-productive times, and refuse to reward (or punish depending on 
your perspective) those who did things that tended to increase their 
non-productive times.

	Genetics plays only a small part in this. Most of the truly 
devastating genetic problems really are a drop in the bucket, and are 
often fairly educational in medical knowledge--which the medical 
establishment should pay for. The less obvious genetic problems are 
usually manageable if the individual knows about it, and is willing 
to do those things--or not do those things--as their condition 
demands.

	Case in point, I have a friend who is diabetic. Not a major 
issue with modern medicine. He can easily afford (given his 
profession) the insulin and medical checkups necessary. However he 
likes to drink, and drink heavily. This will bite him in the future. 
He knows this, and still drinks. Should the insurance companies be 
forced to support him? I say no. He knows what to do. He doesn't do 
it. As much as I like him, it's his life.
-- 
A quote from Petro's Archives:   **********************************************
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government 
of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? 
Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let 
history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural