Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!jrc
From: jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R. Carbin)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.med
Subject: Re: Politics of AIDS, of Foster Care
Message-ID: <8924@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 20:01:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ritcv.8924
Posted: Thu Sep 26 20:01:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 00:49:44 EDT
References: <858@burl.UUCP> <1554@bbncca.ARPA> <865@burl.UUCP> <2034@amdahl.UUCP> <1290@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.motss:2112 net.med:2477

> > [E. Michael Smith]
> > The problem:  Insurance is a form of socialism.  The purpose is to
> > spread the costs generated by one individual over the whole group.
> > ANY attempt to select out ANY higher risk subgroup is in conflict
> > with the basic purpose of insurance.  The inevitable result is a
> > reduction in the cost sharing and a lessening of the 'insurance'.
> > (Yes, I know there are differential rates based on various
> > tables, charts, etc.  The conflict still remains.)
> ---------
> Wrong.  You are correct only if the higher risk subgroup is either
> denied coverage completely or assigned to a separate insurance pool.
> Differential rates (based on risk factors) within the same insurance
> pool in no way lessens the effects of cost sharing.  An insurance
> company with a million customers could use so many risk factors
> that no two customers pay the same rate.  Please explain to me
> how this adversely affects cost sharing.
> Of course, if the rates are so exorbitant that almost no one in the high
> risk group will buy insurance, that is equivalent to denying coverage.
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

WRONG - WRONG- WRONG!  As an unmarried person, I pay the same amount of
FICA (Social Security) Tax as a married person even though I have no
dependents who would benefit if I died prematurely, nor do I have a spouse
who could continue to collect benefits after my death.  FICA Tax is the
same for all.  (NO - don't bring up the two-income family, that has no
bearing on this issue.)  FICA is a form of insurance.

Today, my future retirement benefits are determined irrespective of sex.
Retirement plans are a form of life insurance except the insurer is hoping that
the insured "kicks the bucket" early rather than with the normal life
insurance situation where the insurance company wants you to live to a
ripe old age.

And what about another form of insurance - to insure that we have an
educated population in the future.  (No flames about the quality of
public schools today please!)  My school taxes are not any less or more
because I am single and have no children to send to school.  

I have never objected to paying my school taxes (in excess of $1,200 this
year) as I have always felt that to maintain a society requires such
programs.  I must admit that I have felt that the FICA system is unfair
when it comes to potential benefits, but it is a part of our social
services system and it is not about to be changed.  And while I strongly  
support the Feminine Movement, selfishly I would like to see a differen-
tial in retirement benefits.

These are just three examples when "insurance" premiums are uniform
without respect to age, sex, and marital (family) status.  Why then
should we not extend this same philosophy to other forms of insurance!

As an aside, I wonder what will be your feelings when AIDS becomes
a disease which affects the heterosexual population in the same
ratio as the homosexual population, and when females are affected
as often as males.  This is becoming the situation in 6 African
countries today.

I don't choose to get a deadly disease any more or any less than I
choose not to get married.

j.r.      {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com