Mark Garfinkel's post from 2-27 re insurance

David G. Rhodes - Pharmaceutics, U.T.Austin RHODES at VAX.PHR.UTEXAS.EDU
Sun Feb 27 13:44:00 EST 1994


The unstated is the most significant factor in your entire argument.
In the example of 'you exercise, eat right, etc... while I do not and end up
being sick' there is a voluntary aspect to the argument that _markedly_ 
distinguishes it from the case of an involuntary predisposition imposed by
genetics.  Certainly a self-oriented individual who suspects that he/she is
not one of the 'predisposed' will argue that even in this case it is unfair
for the risk group to carry the load.  In such a construct, one could envision
a population of at risk people paying outrageous premiums, essentially 
establishing a savings account to cover the inevitable costs, and a second
group of relatively risk-free people for whom the 'betting' is a great deal
which allows them to keep all their money.  For the first group, the insurer
is dead wood, and they would be just as well off investing in mutual funds
or the like.  The bottom line is that there  _is_ a shared risk, and to throw
out those who most need the coverage is like leaving unwanted babies on the
mountain outside of town.  All of these recent postings have, in my opinion,
been very strong arguments for the national/universal health care proposals
(pick whichever flavor you prefer, but just do it).

D.G.Rhodes - Pharmaceutics Div. - U. Texas at Austin



More information about the Bioforum mailing list