-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:51:56AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
>
> >> Nowhere in this business model is there any shred of
> >> entitlement or obligation. The insured is not entitled
> >> to coverage. The insurer is not obligated to write a
> >> policy on someone who has risk that makes the policy
> >> too cheap for the insurer to make money.
> >
> >In theory, fine. However, we live in a society where people are not
> >automatically given healthcare. If you don't have insurance, and you
> >don't have the money to pay for treatment, you're shit out of luck.
> >If the insurance companies deny treatment to people who MAY develop a
> >disease later, they are setting these people up to die without
> >healthcare.
>
> That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies
> and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this
> one on them constitutes theft of their resources. If you want to
> have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money
> instead. ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal.
>
I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to maintain
the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of
the government.
> >Maybe I view things differently than you do. I just think that in a
> >country as rich as ours, we can afford to keep our population healthy.
>
> Everybody dies of something. Some are likely to die sooner than
> others, due to accidents of birth or extreme lifestyle. That is
> reality. I persist in thinking that "freedom" means everybody
> gets to decide how to use his/her own talents and property and how
> to deal with his/her own deficiencies, genetic or otherwise.
That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of
people to live happy, productive lives. A discriminatory policy such
as this one would infringe on that freedom.
>
> I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody
> who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person
> for doing it. I also feel that history has shown us that those who
> receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the
> work and sacrifice that it represents. Compelled charity is
> morally and emotionally meaningless.
Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who
cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it.
>
> Bear
>
>
>
>
>
- --
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: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE5853J2FWyBZrQ84IRAs28AJ4u5RERYh0JMM9NsFqUvmRZVO7OAACaA0jq
9h+Bd0iUF5TpxBru6/5ouWE=
=bKuq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
