From: mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Risks and paying for them (was, Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets.)
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:26:47 GMT
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

In article <klg.724109909@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>
>I didn't say freedom "states that you can live any way you please" because
>there are always arguments of not yelling, "THEATER" in a crowded
>firehouse. The point was that I am talking about MY risk, not immoral
>behaviour such as putting others at risk. 

By "living any way you please" I was not refering to activites that put 
other individuals at risk of physical harm... that seems like a rather 
obvious exclusion to this arguement.
    
>I'll not live the way the
>Insurance Companies dictate just to provide them with higher profit margins.

Once again... I'm not advocating that insurance companies or anybody else
dictate your life style...ONLY THAT YOU PAY FOR IT.  And where do you
get the idea that the insurance companies would have higher profits?  I'm
advocating that rates be more reflective of an individuals lifestyle - 
high risk people would pay more while low risk people would pay less.
Currenty, most people are covered under group plans which just compute an
average cost based on very broad catagories (perhaps age?).  At any rate
pesonal habits such as smoking, drinking, recreational persuits, etc. don't
seem to enter into the equation.


>Tell that to the folks that enjoy those sports. You share their risky
>health benefits as they share yours, that's the way the system works.

Well to justify the current system by saying "that's the way the system
works" is a circular arguement... so let's toss that out.  Now that leaves
the concept that I share their risk and they share mine.  Now thats exactly
the point!  "Sharing" is fine if you've got an ~50/50 split, but thats not
the case between folks with high risk life styles and folks with low risk
lifestyles... most of the sharing is going in one direction.  The concept
of sharing risk is fine - AS LONG AS PEOPLE OF SIMILAR RISK PROFILES are
doing the sharing.  What I object to is disimilar risk profiles sharing risk
with one group *subsidizing* the other.

>I shouldn't do what I enjoy just because its extra risky? Sorry, but that's
>bullshit. 

ONCE AGAIN... I'm not saying don't do it.  Go ahead and do it, just don't 
expect me to help you pay for it.

>I don't want to pay the health costs of those who bring cancer
>upon themselves, but I will because that's my responsibility as a citizen,

Why is it our responsibility to pay the health costs of those who bring
cancer upon themselves?  Let me qualify this by saying not cancers of    
undeterminable or unavoidable origins.  I'm talking about cancers from
smoking, alcohol abuse, etc. where medical experts have clearly stated
there is a strong link and it has been ignored by the individual.

>not to mention the fact that it could be me in that cancer ward and I want
>the best treatment possible without being told, "Well, after all it was
>your fault that you got cancer, so say goodbye, you're dead."

If I brought it upon myself by ignoring the advice of experts, I'd be willing
to accept the consequences of my actions.  HOWEVER... that doesn't mean I
wouldn't be able to have the best treatment possible.  I would have paid
more for that privilege through higher insurance premiums.  If those premimums
were too high, I'd alter my lifestyle rather than whine that someone else
should help me pay for the health cost associated with my lifestyle..

>Perhaps the care should not be $50,000. In any case, that is still a red
>herring, cause you don't pay the $50,000. The insurance company does. 

And where do you think the insurance company gets the money - do they
print it up in the back room?  This type of thinking really bugs me!!!
In the end it *all* comes from individuals in a society, through taxes,
premimums, and extra product costs.

>Your
>insurance costs will go up far more due to the waste in the system, not to
>mention that there are far more cases of cancer than head injuries, but I
>don't see the government outlawing cigarettes. (Nor, should they).

Now here's a red herring....  what does waste in the system have to do
with costs incurred by risky behavior?

>You think you are living in a perfect world. If a retarded child runs out
>into the street against the light and gets run over, we should say,
>"Sorry, but that was awfully irresponsible of you, bye, you're dead."?

Oh, come on!  You and I both know their will always be accidents.  I'm
not saying that society at large should not pay for accidents.  What I'm 
saying is that costs associated with high risk activities by rational
individuals should paid for by said individuals - not society at large.


-- 
Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com