rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/09/85)
AIDS Politics
=============
[ from 9/8/85 Boston Globe, p 22, "Congress moving on AIDS issue" by Steven
Waldman, States News Service. Quoted without permission. ]
The avalanche of media coverage of AIDS precipitated by Rock Hudson's
case has apparently stirred Washington to action, but different branches
of gov't are reacting quite differently.
Congress is being constructive: the House Appropriations human services
subcommittee "voted to double to $140 million" funding for research at
NIH "and provide an additional $27 million for public education on AIDS
in 1986." Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Energy & Commerce
health & environment subcommittee, "will introduce legislation that would
prevent anyone from obtaining the records of those" whose blood tests for
HTLV-III are positive. But Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee
that oversees the Dept. of Health & Human Services, says concern about the
budget deficit will prevent "any large federal commitment to treatment."
And the executive branch & a local judiciary contemplate repression:
Health & Human Services "will...recommend that labs inform blood donors
who show possible signs of AIDS that their names may be released to
outsiders." The Florida Supreme Court is "considering a suit that could
open up the [blood donor] records to public inspection."
This represents a drastic broadening & worsening of the situation. Only
weeks ago the American Red Cross retreated from its historic commitment
to donor confidentiality by allowing its local chapters to decide whether
they'd conform to a military demand to hand over HTLV-III bloodtest results
for all military personnel.
Finally, "the American Council of Life Insurers Board of Directors,
meeting this week in California, is likely to recommend that firms use
the HTLV test to assess the risk of an applicant..."
It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical
or legal guidelines. It's time to write & lobby our representatives and
maybe contribute to political action, to prevent gross public & private
violations of rudimentary civil rights & liberties and professional ethics.
FOSTER CARE
===========
For New Englanders, yesterday's Boston Globe Magazine contained a long
article by free-lancer Anita Diamant, "In the best interest of the child-
ren." It was a detailed account of the Babets-Jean case (the gay foster
parents in question) which included interviews.
The Massachusetts ACLU and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are "pre-
paring a legal challenge" that "will focus on two issues: equal protection
for homosexuals...and the state's interpretation of the `best interest of
the child.'"
Meanwhile the New Hampshire legislature continues to prepare a law that
would explicitly ban "known homosexuals" from foster care, guardianship,
or adoption. The Massachusetts policy/proposed bill only gives priority
to "traditional families."
The Boston gay newspaper Bay Windows published an odd letter from Gov.
Michael Dukakis a while ago: the Duke was very solicitous, pledging
support for the state gay rights bill (a first for him), regretting
the treatment of Babets & Jean and opposing homophobia. He ended by
reiterating his support of the foster care policy change (which puts
gays at the bottom of the foster parent preference list)! An amazing
performance. My guess is his stonewall (a la Nixon, not the riot)
attitude toward gay outrage ("How many gay voters are there, anyway?"
he'd been reported as saying) has crumbled somewhat, not least due to
the zaps staged every time he appears in public (they continue, but
I have no news; does anyone else?).
Regards,
Ron Rizzorcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (09/10/85)
In article <1551@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >AIDS Politics >============= >And the executive branch & a local judiciary contemplate repression: >Health & Human Services "will...recommend that labs inform blood donors >who show possible signs of AIDS that their names may be released to >outsiders." The Florida Supreme Court is "considering a suit that could >open up the [blood donor] records to public inspection." > It seems to me that the methods of AIDS transmission, while not 100% certain, are quite well enough known that this should be unnecessary. Hopefully more info to People_What_Be_In_Charge will help this situation. > >This represents a drastic broadening & worsening of the situation. Only >weeks ago the American Red Cross retreated from its historic commitment >to donor confidentiality by allowing its local chapters to decide whether >they'd conform to a military demand to hand over HTLV-III bloodtest results >for all military personnel. > Ridiculous! If the military wants to test all their people; that's fine. If the military wants to give all HTLV-III positives an honorary medical discharge (I'm talking major paranoia here), then that is fine, too; but they should NOT be able to \demand/ anything from Red Cross. >Finally, "the American Council of Life Insurers Board of Directors, >meeting this week in California, is likely to recommend that firms use >the HTLV test to assess the risk of an applicant..." > This one I totally agree with -- what's the difference between this and people with high bloodpressure, diabetes tendencies, etc.? It is the insurance companies' right to assign risk based on present and/or highly-possible disease. >It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical >or legal guidelines. It's time to write & lobby our representatives and >maybe contribute to political action, to prevent gross public & private >violations of rudimentary civil rights & liberties and professional ethics. > AIDS policy will be determined by accurate and widespread info from believable sources (i.e., by quelling paranoia with facts from people that are respected; major newscasters, for example). Until we get that info and get it widely disseminated, AIDS policy will be determined by paranoia and misinformation. I cringed when I saw the very informative article in TIME magazine, information content looked quite good, but there on the first page was a BIG picture of the guy whose wife and child had caught AIDS from him. I know TIME, Inc. is on the net -- if anyone sees the author(s) of that article please tell them I think they should be shot for such yellow journalism. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/12/85)
<followup to Curtis Johnson> What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my posting did not mention it. If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large US cities. There have already been recorded instances of people denied medical insurance coverage (& life insurance, too, I think) merely because it became known they tested positive. Even the military case isn't uncontroversial: despite catch-22, the military can't simply do anything it wants, at least not without serious challenge. If the military has a justification for HTLV-III testing, it would be specific, such as avoiding contact with blood & blood contacts plentifully available in combat or even in some forms of training. But it wouldn't extend to noncombat personnel or civilian employees. Regards, Ron Rizzo
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (09/12/85)
In article <1554@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: ><followup to Curtis Johnson> [<<<<<<<======THAT'S JACKSON!!] > >What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests >to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that >test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise >premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that >oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my >posting did not mention it. > >If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price >on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively >denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men >have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large >US cities. > I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. >Even the military case isn't uncontroversial: despite catch-22, the >military can't simply do anything it wants, at least not without >serious challenge. If the military has a justification for HTLV-III >testing, it would be specific, such as avoiding contact with blood >& blood contacts plentifully available in combat or even in some >forms of training. But it wouldn't extend to noncombat personnel >or civilian employees. > Or that they admittedly don't know enough about AIDS transmission yet to risk the human and legal dangers of forcing non-HTLV-III-positive persons to share barracks and combat training and common wash areas and etc. etc. with persons who have tested positive. I know this is REALLY stretching things to make an analogy, but imagine you are told that you must continue to stay in a barracks where there is a very mild flea problem but you know that some of the fleas have been shown to carry bubonic plague... My original point stands -- smokers pay more insurance than non-smokers, people in certain [often NECESSARY] high-risk jobs pay much more insurance. If I was an insurance company (I HATE insurance companies, BTW; just trying to be unbiased here), I would view a male positive-HTLV-III homosexual with just as jaundiced (from an insurability standpoint) an eye as I would a professional highwire performer. The highwire performer will probably not use a net and the gay guy will probably not refrain from anal sex. All it means to me is that I'm going to pay through the nose when they croak. I think that the real horror of AIDS is that even when a cure/serum is developed it will take 2 or 3 years to hit the market due to the FDA red tape -- I think it is highly criminal that a patient, particularly a terminal patient, often cannot get a doctor to use them as a guinea pig for a new drug or technique. I for one would be VERY upset if I knew that I had a chance to raise my probability of living from 0 to .3 but couldn't get anyone to help me do so due to legal restraints. BTW, I suppose I should have said 'admitted homosexual' above; have you noticed how even the 'responsible' press ALWAYS uses that adjective 'admitted'? No wonder it took so long to get funding for AIDS... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/12/85)
>It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical >or legal guidelines. I think that such policy is inherently political. My neighbor has been running a research program related to AIDS for a couple years and has been constantly having to fight political problems. Research funding in all areas cannot be separated from politics can it?
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/13/85)
In article <865@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >In article <1554@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >><followup to Curtis Johnson> [<<<<<<<======THAT'S JACKSON!!] >> >>What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests >>to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that >>test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise >>premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that >>oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my >>posting did not mention it. >> >>If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price >>on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively >>denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men >>have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large >>US cities. >> >I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- >correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive >and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. > NY Native, 9 Sept. 85 - Nationwide Insurance seeks to deny policies to gays "Columbus, Ohio - The Trenton times reported Aug 16 that the Columbus based Nationwide Insurance Company has begun screening male applicants in states with high incidence of ADIS to determine if they are gay. Lou Fabro, director of public relations for the $3.5 billion company, told the Times, 'If an applicant is a potential homosexual, the underwriters have ways of finding out. We can deny coverage. We wouldn't tell them why, we would just say they didn't qualify.' "Fabro later retracted the statement, telling the Associated Press it was 'taken out of context.' He added, 'Nationwide does not deny coverage to homosexuals. We couldn't do that. But if we are suspicious that a person is promiscuous ,since only promiscuous people get AIDS. The Times reported that Nationwide checks for evidence of homosexuality by interviewing neighbors, checking for male roommates, checking for male beneficiaries on other policies, and by running credit checks." -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA (415) 823-2417 {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (09/18/85)
> >What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests > >to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that > >test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise > >premiums ... > > > >If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price > >on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively > >denied life insurance. ... > > > I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- > correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive > and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. > > My original point stands -- smokers pay more insurance than non-smokers, > people in certain [often NECESSARY] high-risk jobs pay much more insurance. > If I was an insurance company (I HATE insurance companies, BTW; just trying > to be unbiased here), I would view a male positive-HTLV-III homosexual with > just as jaundiced (from an insurability standpoint) an eye as I would a > professional highwire performer. ... > 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.) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [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
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (09/24/85)
> > [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. ... > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan In a very simple way. If I pay more than you do for insurance, then I have greater expense than you do. My costs are not perfectly shared. While it is true that in our present economy there are differential rates based on a variety of 'risk factors' and while it is true that most of the time the people paying more for coverage are still getting some sharing of costs; it is also true that the only time costs are perfectly shared is when all parties pay the same amount without regard to costs generated. Any thing else is a compromise. (This is probably a point that is not relevent to the real world, perfection is rare in it ...) BTW, I am confused by the statement '...correct only if ... assigned to a separate insurance pool.' It would seem to me that the act of segregating me into a different rate group *is* putting me into a separate insurance pool... Or are you saying that an insurance pool is a given asset base from which insurance can be paid? Let me try a different model for explaination. The purpose of insurance is to share cost, on that I think we have agreed. If all costs were summed, then shared equally, we would have perfect sharing. If all costs were summed, then divided equally by the number of people, then some people had costs deducted while others had costs added based on some 'risk factors', we would have imperfect sharing. (So far, so good, I hope ) At this point I claim that the imperfect sharing is a reduction of the 'insurance' by the amount extra that an individual must pay due to risk factors. Admitedly a very small amount compared to the potential magnetude of individual costs if one is totaly uninsured. The only way that I can see where this would not be true would be the following. If the definition of insurance is not taken to be the sharing of costs, but rather the substitution of *some known* fixed cost for some unknown variable cost. Then it would not matter that the costs were unequally shared. The only important point would be that there was a known rather than unknown cost. The known cost could vary by individual yet still be 'insurance'. However, the underlying mechanism by which insurance companies work depends on the sharing of costs over a large group, so I would hold the cost sharing definition to be the best on. (Sorry about the length of this. I hope that by making one long explaination of my position we can avoid several dozen rounds of missunderstandings...) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/25/85)
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.
jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R. Carbin) (09/27/85)
> > [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
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/28/85)
> > > [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.) > > --------- > > [Bill Tanenbaum] > > 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. ... --------- > [E. Michael Smith] > The purpose of > insurance is to share cost, on that I think we have agreed. If all > costs were summed, then shared equally, we would have perfect sharing. > If all costs were summed, then divided equally by the number of > people, then some people had costs deducted while others had costs added > based on some 'risk factors', we would have imperfect sharing. > (So far, so good, I hope ) At this point I claim that the imperfect > sharing is a reduction of the 'insurance' by the amount extra that > an individual must pay due to risk factors. Admitedly a very small amount > compared to the potential magnetude of individual costs if one is > totaly uninsured. > > The only way that I can see where this would not be true would be > the following. If the definition of insurance is not taken to be the > sharing of costs, but rather the substitution of *some known* fixed cost > for some unknown variable cost. Then it would not matter that the > costs were unequally shared. The only important point would be that > there was a known rather than unknown cost. The known cost could vary > by individual yet still be 'insurance'. However, the underlying > mechanism by which insurance companies work depends on the sharing of > costs over a large group, so I would hold the cost sharing definition > to be the best one. ------- I misundersood your use of the term "cost sharing" in your first posting. You use it to mean "sharing the costs equally". To avoid misunderstanding, I will use "cost sharing" in quotes to mean what you take it to mean. It is NOT TRUE that "cost sharing", in your usage of the term, is the purpose of insurance. The purpose of insurance for the customer is the substitution of a fixed cost for a variable cost. The underlying mechanism of insurance does NOT depend on "cost sharing". It depends on laws of statistics. If there is an insurance pool with fixed assets with one million customers, the costs can be prorated on the basis of risk, with great assurance that the total cost in benefits to the company will be predictable. As a matter of fact, this predictability deteriorates, rather than improves, if the "costs" are shared equally among the customers. An insurance company achieves the most predictability in benefit payout when it assigns its rates in accordance with the probability it will have to pay out. Imagine if you will a life insurance company run according to your philosophy. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of risk. All 90 year olds, terminal cancer patients, AIDS victims, etc. sign up. Deny them coverage, you say. O. K., all 80 year olds, heart patients, diabetes victims, etc. sign up, etc. Your insurance company would go down the tubes unless it limited itself to covering people of the same age and general health. Even then, because of your reduced number of customers, the predictability of total benefit payout would be reduced compared to my company, which insures almost everybody, but with premiums proportional to perceived risk. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/02/85)
> > > [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.) > > --------- > > [Me] > > 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. -------------- > [j.r.] > 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. > 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. ----- I was talking about commercially available voluntary private insurance policies, not Social Security or other retirement plans. They are a completely different ball game, even if you call them insurance. ----- > And what about another form of insurance - to insure that we have an > educated population in the future. ----- I wasn't talking about that either. ----- > 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! ----- Because the insurance companies would go broke, unless all the customers were comparable risks. It "works" for F.I.C.A. only because FICA is compulsory. ----- > 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. ----- I don't understand your point. I did not state my feelings about AIDS or AIDS victims in any way. I simply implied that private voluntary insurance companies must take risk into account when setting policy rates, or they will go broke. That's an economic fact of life. Feelings don't enter into it. AIDS victims are no different than victims of other highly fatal diseases, such as lung cancer, in this respect. The unfortunate prevalence of homophobia in our society should not make you read it in where none is intended. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (10/03/85)
> > > > [E. Michael Smith] > > > > The problem: Insurance is a form of socialism. The purpose is to > > > --------- > > > [Bill Tanenbaum] > > > Wrong. You are correct only if the higher risk subgroup is either > > > denied coverage completely or assigned to a separate insurance pool. > --------- > > [E. Michael Smith] > > The purpose of > > insurance is to share cost, on that I think we have agreed. If all > > costs were summed, then shared equally, we would have perfect sharing. > ------- > -- > [Bill Tanenbaum] > I misundersood your use of the term "cost sharing" in your first > posting. You use it to mean "sharing the costs equally". To > avoid misunderstanding, I will use "cost sharing" in quotes to > mean what you take it to mean. > It is NOT TRUE that "cost sharing", in your usage of the term, is > the purpose of insurance. The purpose of insurance for the customer > is the substitution of a fixed cost for a variable cost. The underlying We have a difference in definition of terms and a difference in what we see as the purpose of insurance. The difference in terms can be resolved by searching for common definition; the difference in the percieved purpose of insurance will not change or go away. I understand your position, but dissagree. I assume you feel the same. End of discussion? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)