Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.med
Subject: Re: Politics of AIDS, of Foster Care
Message-ID: <898@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 09:05:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.898
Posted: Wed Sep 25 09:05:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:01:32 EDT
References: <858@burl.UUCP> <1554@bbncca.ARPA> <865@burl.UUCP> <2034@amdahl.UUCP> <1290@ihlpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.motss:2104 net.med:2456

In article <1290@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>> [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.

That is what some insurance companies and insurance lobbies are already
taking about. See my previous postings on same.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com