From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 22:43:55 MST
weidai@weidai.com (Wei Dai) writes:
>The obvious strategy for a belligerent state interested in taking over an
>area protected by insurance companies is to pre-announce an attack a year
>ahead of time (or whatever period long enough for most insurance policies
>to expire). Insurance rates for the targeted area would go way up, causing
>most people in that area to be unable to afford insurance. This would
>cause the insurance companies to raise their rates even further, or to
>decline to renew policies in the targeted areas at any price. The state
>can then move in largely unopposed.
How does this differ from an argument that private health insurance
won't work for serious, long-lasting illnesses because when a person
comes down with the illness, he will no longer be able to afford
insurance?
We can see that many people have been able to buy insurance policies
that continue to function tolerably if the person contracts a serious
disease. How hard would it be to design a military insurance contract
that functioned similarly?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the | President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic | and servile, but morally treasonable to the | American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 22:50:41 MST