CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Sun Oct 22 10:51:56 PDT 2000



On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:

>> Nowhere in this business model is there any shred of 
>> entitlement or obligation.  The insured is not entitled 
>> to coverage.  The insurer is not obligated to write a 
>> policy on someone who has risk that makes the policy 
>> too cheap for the insurer to make money.  
>
>In theory, fine.  However, we live in a society where people are not
>automatically given healthcare.  If you don't have insurance, and you
>don't have the money to pay for treatment, you're shit out of luck.
>If the insurance companies deny treatment to people who MAY develop a
>disease later, they are setting these people up to die without
>healthcare.

That's true, but it is irrelevant.  As long as insurance companies
and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this 
one on them constitutes theft of their resources.  If you want to 
have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money 
instead.  ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal.

>Maybe I view things differently than you do.  I just think that in a
>country as rich as ours, we can afford to keep our population healthy.

Everybody dies of something.  Some are likely to die sooner than 
others, due to accidents of birth or extreme lifestyle.  That is 
reality.  I persist in thinking that "freedom" means everybody 
gets to decide how to use his/her own talents and property and how 
to deal with his/her own deficiencies, genetic or otherwise.

I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody 
who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person 
for doing it.  I also feel that history has shown us that those who 
receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the 
work and sacrifice that it represents.  Compelled charity is 
morally and emotionally meaningless.

				Bear








More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list