CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

Jim Choate ravage at ssz.com
Mon Oct 23 05:36:45 PDT 2000


On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, petro wrote:

> >	Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
> >completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
> >might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance
> >and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness,
> >even one  completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition.
> 
> 	Nonsense.

It's not? Demonstrate where Libertarian or Anarchic ideals take care of
this person even in principle? Explain how they're not turned away and
left to die? 

And don't invoke the old 'somebody will take care of them' bullshit.
Because it is clear today that many people don't get taken care of at all.

Explain why moving to such a system will empower the mild of human
kindness in these sad souls?

> 	If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) 
> deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies.

They could, but they're not stupid. In a un-regulated market the insurance
companies will focus on profits alone and that unfortuantely (and much to
the chagrin of the libertarian/anarchy crowd) means that there will
actualy be LESS insurance available and it will exist at a higher cost.

> They  could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast 
> cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic 
> predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her 
> insurance for *all* other illnesses.

This can be done today legaly, the question is whether the newer more
accurate technologies should be used. NOT wether such policies can be
written.

> 	Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just* 
> for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to 
> eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues.

Leving her free to die, that ungrateful irresponsible bitch (for getting
cancer that is).
 
> 	That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner" and Sambo A. S. 
> seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for 
> everyone else.

No, it means savings for the insurance company. It is clear that history
shows that unregulated markets do not in general move to a minimum in
costs and servicability. Hell, look at the aircraft industry for contrary
evidence.

And what you seem to miss is that your 'free market' theory is screwed for
the simple reason that real life doesn't conform to free market theory
without some major modifications (that happen to require at least light
regulation).

    ____________________________________________________________________

                     He is able who thinks he is able.

                                           Buddha

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list