-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:23:19AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
> Nathan Saper wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:36:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > > "What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is
> > > willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
> > >
> > > Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he
> > > expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to
> > > pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits.
> > > Insurance is
> > > gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
> >
> > 1) Insurance is a very profitable business. I don't feel sorry for a
> > CEO of an insurance company making millions each year. They can
> > afford to insure people that MAY develop certain conditions later in
> > life.
>
> General Electric's Power Systems division is very profitable. Should it
> start giving away its stock in trade to poor nations which "need" an
> electric generation plant, regardless of the nation's prior
> mismanagement which led to its inability to pay?
>
That's a different situation. Insurance isn't a product, it's a
service. Like someone said in an earlier post, insurance is a
gamble. People put in money so, in the event of a sickness, they get
more out than they put in. Denying coverage tips the scale in favor
of the insurance company.
>
> > 2) Notice the "MAY" above. Insurance companies consider even the
> > slightest risk grounds for denying coverage.
>
> Bull. The overweight still get coverage.
I was referring specifically to genetic abormalities.
>
>
> > 3) Your food analogy above is flawed for several reasons.
> > a) If Bob has as much money as everyone else, he will be sold the
> > food.
> > b) If Bob, on the other hand, has a genetic abnormality that could
> > later lead to heart disease, he can be denied health coverage
> > regardless of his ability to pay the premium.
> > c) In the food example, charities, etc. can help Bob out. In the
> > insurance area, he has no such help to fall back on.
>
> In re b), Bob won't be denied health _care_, regardless of his genetic
> abnormalities or actual medical history, provided that he pays for it.
> Also, food and medical coverage are apples and oranges, to torture a
> metaphor. There is an upper limit to what people spend on food, even
> given unlimited resources. There seems to be _no_ upper limit on what
> people will spend on medical care. This is exacerbated when costs are
> shared.
I agree on the comment about medical spending, as well as apples and
oranges.
As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more
expensive than coverage.
>
> In re c), what, you've never heard of free clinics? Hell, I've donated
> piles (in terms of my net worth) of cash to clinics, on the premise that
> helping to control VD will have a societal benefit in excess of many
> other uses of the money. For that matter, when my son was born I noticed
> that I had been assessed about $400 to help cover the medical costs of
> the indigent. (Which pissed me off, since I wasn't notified beforehand
> that the hospital would do that, nor given a chance to opt out, but
> that's another topic.)
I've heard of free clinics. But they're extremely hard to find in
most areas, and they are often overbooked.
>
>
> > > Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate.
> > > Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade.
> >
> > You haven't answered a single one of my emails without including a
> > personal attack of some sort. You're being an asshole, and that's not
> > necessary.
>
> Wow, you haven't been reading c-punks long. If Tim makes a personal
> attack on you, it'll usually involve an observation that you should be
> killed.
Yeah, I think I've gotten one of those. ;-)
>
> I would say that Tim's comment, above, is more an observation than an
> attack. I agree with him completely, except that he doesn't go far
> enough.
That's fine. I have no problem with being disliked. I just think
that having an attack in every message is a waste of bandwith.
>
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE57owU2FWyBZrQ84IRAuBPAJ9VaMGDP6eI7areGoeW2Xc+aABwVACgmUsr
JIZcvVSK3ibIfrqmfa+HMTo=
=/r7b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
