CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

petro petro at bounty.org
Mon Oct 23 23:45:07 PDT 2000


>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, 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.
>>
>>  	If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly)
>>  deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. 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.
>>
>>  	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.
>>
>
>But they AREN'T deregulated, at least not yet.  In any case, the
>debate was about what companies should do NOW, not about what they

	No, the argument was over what it would be *right* for 
insurance companies to do.

>would/could/should do in the as-of-now imaginary world of total
>deregulation.
>
>I can't debate about the deregulation of insurance, because I'm not
>well-read on that subject.
>
>>  	That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner"
>
>Come on, now.  Our disagreement doesn't automatically classify me as a
>"thoughtless whiner."  I have thought about these issues; I just
>haven't reached the same conclusions you have.

	I am not calling you a thoughtless whiner because you 
disagree with me. I have disagreed with many on this list--including 
Mr. May, and Mr. Choate, but I would call neither of them thoughtless.

	You have consistently (in the short time you've been "here) 
advocated positions that indicate a severe lack of cycles spent on 
the ramifications of that which you argue.

>
>>  and Sambo A. S.
>>  seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for
>>  everyone else.
>
>The costs for the few would rise much more than the savings for the
>many.  Therefore, the number of people with genetic abnormalities who
>could not afford insurance would rise, while the number of genetically
>normal people who could afford insurance would not be altered
>drastically.

	No, they wouldn't.

	Ailments caused by genetic predispositions, once they 
manifest, are *very* expensive, and help set the bell curve. In an 
insurance market with deregulated players (both providers and 
consumers) a companies would be forced to compete *much* harder than 
they do now.

	As it is, government influence in the Medical Insurance 
market has strongly distorted costs, and driven up the prices for 
medical care *and* insurance.
-- 
A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
--Dr. Kathleen Dixon,
Director of Women s Studies,
Bowling Green State University





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list