DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

Stormwalker bruen at coldrain.net
Tue Jul 8 08:30:27 PDT 2003


On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:

> On Monday 07 July 2003 07:53 pm, Stormwalker wrote:
> 
> >
> >    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.
> >
> 
> Bzzzzt. Tim is correct. Companies that provide medical insurance are betting 
> that you will require $X dollars of medical treatment and then charge you $Y 
> dollars hoping that $Y > $X (including the interest earned by investing $Y).

   Correct to a point. As businesses, their primary goal is to make a 
   profit. Providing goods/services is a by-product. Please don't assume
   I like insurance companies, especially when they are in between me and
   medical services.  I would be happier self-insuring and paying for the
   spikes in cost along the way. I was merely pointing out that, although
   the insurance providers and others, see the industry as a busines (read
   quarterly/annual timeframes), this is an incorrect way of looking at 
   it. It is incorrect because our lives go past the annual profit and 
   should be viewed over a much longer time span. By comparing my behavior
   today with the behavior of others, you get a distorted picture of
   what is happening. The business is happy with that picture because 
   there is always someone to point a finger at, today.

 
> The problem is that as you get older, the probability of you needing $$$ of 
> medical treatment goes up and even higher if you engage in unhealthy 
> practices (smoking,  overeating, etc.).

   This is true to a point, but the facts are a little different. The 
   stats show a spike in deaths at age 50 and 65, which is the basis for
   SS retirement age, and for over 50 folks it's 66 and increasing. The 
   spikes are caused by bad behavior, bad genes and bad luck, but have
   been reliable for a long time.
 
> The gubmint's solution to this is what you are talking about... "Medicare". 
> The fundamental assumption is that their are more healthy people than sick 
> ones so that the premiums payed by the healthy people can be used to pay for 
> medical care for the sick.

   Pyramid scheme.
 
> Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with this assumption. 1) Amazing 
> advances in medical technology that allow people who are sick to live longer, 
> but are very expensive, which leads to 2) more older (and less healthy) 
> people than young (and more healthy) people.

   Again, true to a point. It turns out once the sickly have been weeded
   out (50 & 65), the 80+ people are *generally* in good health when 
   compared to the rest of the population in spite the creation of the 
   living dead segment.

   Keep in mind that young people stress the medical system as well as
   the old. Giving birth is not cheap, for example. Neither is pediatric
   care. If you are going analyze the costs, you need to look at all of
   them, not a just piece at time. Why should I pay for an AIDS patient? 
   Well, why should I pay for women giving birth, except when it's my
   child? 

                    cheers, bob





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list