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

[Riad S. Wahby]

Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni at cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Which speaks right into the socialist cause - we thus need an instance to
> take care of the many genetically defective asses out there, without concern
> for money.

How so?  In most cases, the genetic defects that we're discussing are
not those that produce three heads and a heart the size of a
watermelon; insurance companies don't need any tests to know they're
not insuring such a person.  The things we're concerned with are
conditions such as a familial tendency towards heart disease or a
possibility of developing diabetes later in life.  For the most part,
they're not things that prevent people from holding jobs and having
money.

I see a possibility for the equivalent of high-risk vehicular
insurance for people who have genetic defects as genetic testing for
insurance purposes becomes more common.  Just as some companies
specialize in insuring those who have showed themselves to have shitty
driving records, health insurance companies who have high-rate,
high-risk policies will become more common.  Sure, it'll be more
expensive for people who have serious genetic problems to get
coverage, but it's certainly the case that it's more expensive to
provide _care_, so the expense is not unjust.

In light of this, my question is the following: 

Why do you believe that those who are born with genetic problems have
additional entitlements that the rest of us don't have?

Alternatively, attempt to justify placing the burden for healthcare of
a particular person with genetic defects on any of the following:

(a) that person
(b) insurance companies
(c) taxpayers

> OK. So how about preventative care? It might well be that by insuring
> everyone and keeping them in health, the total risk per dollars paid for
> coverage actually goes down. Especially if infectious diseases can be kept
> in check. Plus, the sum total of money paid by the insurees goes up as they
> stay healthier for longer, thus giving more money for the insurance company
> to invest into more profitable ventures. This is what governments do now.

Even if it is the case that preventative care would be cheaper, then
it's just stupidity on the part of the insurance company not to invest
this way; this does not justify government intervention ("You're not
running your business right; let us help!" would sound strange coming
from the U.S. government, anyway).

However, I reject that it is the case that additional preventative
care would do anything.  Currently, most insurance companies I know of
will pay for flu shots and things along those lines.  What else do you
want?  We could cover your arm in a cast so that it doesn't get
broken, but I'm not sure if you'd really like that.

I can't produce any hard figures on frivolous hospital visits, but my
feeling (having lived in a family of medical people) is that any
additional preventative care that the insurance companies attempted to
provide would only end up encouraging hypochondriacs to go to their
doctor or hospital on the slightest whim.

--
Riad Wahby
rsw at mit.edu
MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 2544 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001020/56ef18f1/attachment.sig>