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.