DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

Major Variola (ret) mv at cdc.gov
Mon Jul 7 19:57:48 PDT 2003

At 08:53 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:
>> No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on
>> when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with
>> nationalized social medicine.
>   No, I am not confusing medical insurance with socialized medicine
>   or anything else. I mentioned life insurance on purpose. That is a
>   bet on when I will die, they bet later, I bet earlier. Money can
>   be made - although never by me unless I cheat.

Not at all.  Much like gambling, sometimes you win "randomly"
if you stop playing after that.  "Random" is a word that means
"ignorance" and both you and the insurer are ignorant about
your true lifespan.  You only play the life-insurance game once :-)

>   Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not
>   need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head
>   to the nearest emergency room.

One person's need does not make another a slave.

BTW One could argue that driver's insurance is *more* necessary
than medical insurance, because to exist daily you need to drive.

But again, need and slaves.

>  Well, you probably don't need to explain the problems of socialized
>  medicine, but I would like to hear about how you will do your own
>  X-Rays or chemotherapy.

Some pay cash.  You can do without car insurance if you post a bond.
Others depend on *voluntary* charity --though nowadays this competes
with compulsory (taxed) welfare.

>  Not any more. See life insurance. Also, please keep in mind that
>  insurance compnaies do not make their money from premiums, but
>  from investments of all the premiums they collect and hold. Your
>  is not correct.

You forget that if the insurer bets wrong, they have to pay up and cash
in their investments.  For certain investments, premature withdrawl
costs more
than sitting on the cash.  Otherwise, like banks, or landlords with
or other putatively free agents, insurers are free to do with their
funds as they please.
So long as they hold up their end of the contracts they've entered.

>The rock climber will probably not have that
>   heart attack.

FWIW, the rock climber's choice of ancestors (!) has more to do with
their heart attack (etc) risk than their choice of avocation.

>> (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various
>> or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is
>> unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't
>> is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw.
>> Think about it.)
>   This scenario of testing for specific genes is already underway.
>   tuned.

The flip side of Tim's comment is that you can pay extra for things you
are at risk for.  In a truly free market, insurers would offer packages
customized to your risk.  Genomic tendancy towards X?  Pay more,
get more ---including max payout.  Little tendancy towards Y?  Pay
less.  Rational people follow Pascal --you include probability in your
reasoning about costs.  Of course, in a free society, you are free to
be irrational, too.  (And consume whatever, and enjoy masochism, etc.)

[oblig] Those who would constrain those freedoms have earned killing.

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list