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.