Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 04:25:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1034 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <377E75DD.377FC107@voyager.net>...
> Frank Filz wrote:
> Agreed. But the pooling must be proportional to the risk. As long as we
> do not allow insurance companies to charge MORE for riskier people, they
> will instead maneuver underhandedly to exclude them completely.
One thing that does worry me a bit is if our capability to identify genetic
markers for those diseases which are genetic outstrips our ability to
improve care for them knowing they are at risk. In that case, we could end
up with groups of uninsureable people. Of course if it still turns out that
the genetic markers just identify a risk, not a certainty, then these people
will still be insureable, though I think Larry is right, that risk does have
to play into things. Charity will also still step in to help many people.
Thinking about risk, I was just thinking how do you adjust premiums based on
risky behaviors? When you buy your insurance, do you sign on the dotted line
that you always wear your seatbelt, or use a helmet when riding your
motorcycle (or pick any other rosky behavior, and this assumes of course
that these behaviors really are riskier), and then the insurance company
denies coverage, or comes after you with a surcharge, if you have an
accident and weren't wearing your seatbelt (or whatever)?
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
