Patrick Wilken wrote:
> The basic assumption appears to be that insurance agencies will act
> rationally to by using genetic testing to screen out those in the
> population that are most likely to become ill to therefore increase profit
> margins.
To counter this, people might support the passage of regs saying that only those ailments for which there is an affordable cure can be used as grounds for denial of coverage for pre-existing or DNA screened conditions. This would certainly be an incentive for drug companies to invest in more medical research....
>
Tell me, how in the hell does your tax money subsidize my not wearing a seat
belt? If you are talking about medicare support for the disabled, its your own
fault for choosing to live in a political unit which has such an insurance
system which you must pay into and is full of people who are not anal retentive
wenies like yourself. If you don't like it go found the Anal Retentive Republic
and set things up as you like them. I certainly don't want my tax
> But a counterbalancing force might also prevail: those most likely to
> remain well might make a rational course of action and drop out of
> insurance schemes (or at least demand much lower policies) and therefore
> reduce the profit of insurance companies.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with companies trying to maximize profit. Why
> would people expect anything else? If you believe that all people should be
> entitled to equal medical coverage you should look to governments not
> corporations. Then of course healthier people have to put up with
> supporting the less healthy. This is particularly irritating when my tax
> dollars support those who smoke, eat lots of fat, and take really stupid
> risks (such as driving without a seat belt or consuming drugs while
> driving).
Mike Lorrey