DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

[Stormwalker]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:
> >   I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life
> >   or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would
> >   draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates
> >   rise, along with a host of other problems.
> 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.

   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. The pool I speak of is simply that
   I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have
   shared types of services and very specific service. I will most likely
   never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for broken
   bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, 
   but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we are 
   born. 


> Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here?

  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.

> Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all 
> other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the 
> bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out 
> something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or 
> hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly (or 
> even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable reasons).

  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 model
  is not correct.

> By the way, any scheme to force everyone into the same insurance pool 
> for the same premiums is profoundly antiliberty and is unconstitutional 
> (violates all sorts of rights). "Opting out" of coverage is always 
> fair. If I know I am not a rock climber, why would I pay for coverage 
> for rock climbing falls? And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex 
> or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/

   This is a detour from my original proposition, but in answer to your
   question, you do not pay for rock climbing injuries. You pay for what
   you need and the rock climber pays for rock climbing risks. You may
   do something else risky or eat too many french fries that will cause
   a heart attack later. The rock climber will probably not have that
   heart attack. Opt out if you wish. I have opted out for a number of
   years by choice myself and have opted in as well.
 
> (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes 
> or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly 
> unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" 
> 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. Stay
   tuned.

                cheers, bob