http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24403453/
I can’t for the life of me figure out why he’d vote against something like this?
Ron Paul is an Objectivist. He’s pro-Corporations, anti-everything else. What did you expect? He’s Bioshock’s Andrew Ryan in the flesh. He’s Ayn Rand’s John Galt.
Of course he’s going to vote against that.
Huh? Why WOULDN’T he? If someone is genetically predisposed to a certain ailment, why is that suddenly the insurance company’s fault? Life is not fair. We cannot force fairness through legislation.
He is the one man in that chamber with principles, and the ability to think through their implications.
Yeeeeaaaah.
“Oh, sorry. You seem to be predisposed of something you’ve never had any control over! I hereby banish you to a life of never getting anywhere, because you might die. Also, you’ll be poor and in debt forever.”
LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM!
So your answer to basic unfairness is to transfer that unfairness to other people?
People who say shit like this have something seriously wrong with them.
Imagine your mother gets cancer, and she can’t afford insurance. She’s going to die.
Would you say, “Gee, sorry Mom, that cancer is going to eat your body, but at least the government isn’t trying to make life fair. That would really suck.”
What the fuck?
Why is it somebody else’s responsibility to pay for my mother’s cancer?
Because society is a tribe, not a gang.
Maybe we should also have caps as to how many times a person can call the police to report a crime committed against them and have the police investigate. Or maybe just have a pay as you go solution. Should I have to pay for the police to investigate 3 crimes committed against you if I didn’t need their services at all this year?
So your answer to basic unfairness is to transfer that unfairness to other people?
Pretty much. It’s called risk mitigation. Groups of people regularly engage in it. Insurance is a “free market” attempt to provide just this. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work terribly well.
In this case we have a regulation that forces insurance companies to treat this risk mitigation at a global level instead of letting them merely opt out of coverage for the few individuals who lost the genetic lottery. This is necessary if we want the “free market” model to have a chance of offering what our society actually wants – i.e. universal risk mitigation.
God, why are you making me agree with Dirt? Was I bad in a past life?
IIUC, insurance companies already discriminate on certain manifested genetic conditions, including, notably, sex, as well as genetic-related ailments that you’ve already contracted.
And FWIW, insurance companies also discriminate on other characteristics that are not under your direct control. (i.e. Age. Can I request the 21 year old rate for males instead of the 38 year old rate for males, please?)
In general, when you forbid insurance companies from using information that reflects the risk of the insured, and the insured knows the information in question, then you have the potential for self-selection problems. If I’m 30 and know that I have a relatively high chance of contracting cancer in the next 10 years, but haven’t contracted it yet, I will be much more inclined to load up on health insurance and life insurance. In turn, that will, over time, raise the payouts made by the insurance companies, who will likely raise rates to reflect that. In an extreme case, the ‘bad’ insurance risks would overwhelm the ‘good’ insurance risks, to the point where those who know they are healthier than average would forego insurance to avoid subsidizing others.
It probably doesn’t make much difference yet - the number of folks who know this information about themselves through genetic screening is probably relatively low (I’m guessing). It may or may not make more of a difference in the future. And FWIW, I’m not necessarily saying that this bill is good or bad - I’m just outlining the potential cost of passing this bill. There are certainly benefits as well (including, IMO, greater fairness for society).
Why is this so hard to get? Spread the bad luck around, so that the individual is not overly burdened by it. I’d think insurance companies would understand that just fine, seeing as it is their core business.
I mean, it does require a world view that isn’t based on contempt for other people, so I see why it doesn’t make sense to you, but it’s not really a difficult concept.
I don’t know, why is it your responsibility help pay for highways, public schools, or police.
Because though you may not personally need them, your world might be much worse if they didn’t exist.
Like a world of dirt roads that you have to pay to use every day, manned by illiterates, and run by criminals.
HOORAY!
If you are going to vote against a bill like this, you are identifying yourself as an exteme captialist. That’s fine, but that also means that you should be against all social welfare as well.
Mr. Paul is entitled to his opinion, but on that issue he does not reflect anyone but a tiny minority of Americans.
But if people are afraid to be tested, then as long as the insurance companies don’t force tests, it’s not an issue anymore. Sure, without the potential pressure from insurance companies, people may be more likely to get tested so it’s kind of a chicken and egg thing.
However, this seems yet another reason we should have a single payer national health insurance plan. It’d come out of your taxes, so short of being maniacally poor or tax fraud, there would be no dodging your fair share.
Police are not the same as the other examples people are throwing out.
Also, if one objects to this bill, there’s a good chance that he objects to public schools and highways, too.
Ok, good answers.
Answers fundamentally incompatible with individual human rights and self-determination and property rights, but good and internally consistent answers nonetheless.
It’s interesting to think about this for a moment. The share the burden idea in insurance was almost a requirement to make it work in the past. However, the communications revolution (including the internet and computers) has actually allowed for a much more focused approach to insurance. Now you can look for and find all kinds of details that allow you to weed out risk to whatever degree you want.
What do you mean by, “make it work?”
Except they’re not. Just a business can make a contract, so can a society of free, self-determined people who own property. In this case we have a large, continuously evolving contract which has as one of its goals the mitigation of health risks across society. Those who disagree are, well, free to shop around for a different country to live in.