Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site kobold.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!kobold!tjt
From: tjt@kobold.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Denying insurance coverage.
Message-ID: <268@kobold.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 20:50:23 EST
Article-I.D.: kobold.268
Posted: Wed Feb  1 20:50:23 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 04:36:10 EST
References: <581@pyuxqq.UUCP>
Organization: Masscomp, Westford, MA
Lines: 50

Well, well! pyuxqq!uname (??) has given us another *reductio ad
absurdum* argument.  Taken point by point:

    ... those who don't wear shoulder belts, etc should get reduced/no
    insurance payments if they are hurt.

Fine with me, although they should have the option to pay higher
premiums beforehand.

    ... deny blue-cross/medicade payments to smokers when they need
    lung cancer operations.

For blue-cross and other private health insurance, the answer is
simple: require higher premiums.  It is already common practice to get
reduced life and fire insurance premiums if you don't smoke.  I don't
know about health insurance, but it would make sense.  Government
sponsored insurance (medicaid/medicare) is more of a problem though
since nobody pays a premium for this (they are called "taxes" instead).

    And how about denying payment to those who ate fatty foods all
    their life and then get heart attacks, or need expensive bypass
    operations.

Again, the sensible way to handle this would be by requiring increased
premiums.  I leave it to you to define what constitutes excessively
fatty foods especially as there is some evidence that this varies
significantly with the individual.

    Maybe pedestrians who get hit by an auto should get reduced payments
    cause they were not wearing a helmet.  Additionally, anyone who
    accidently touches a worn electric cord shouldn't be able to get
    blue-cross payments cause they weren't wearing rubber gloves.

This is where things get ridiculous.  Why?  Primarily because the cost
of these kinds of accidents is much, much less than automobile
accidents, lung cancer or heart attacks (not necessarily the cost of
any individual accident, but the total cost of all such accidents).

In all these situations, I'm sure that the insurance companies aren't
losing money: it's the people paying higher premiums to subsidize the
assumed risks of others that lose.  I think that the existence of
"non-smoker" discounts shows that the insurance companies are willing
to apportion some of the cost according to assumed risk.

I'll take my non-smoking and seat-belt discounts, pay extra for junk
food and let the net.veggies get a rebate for their lowfat diet.

-- 
	Tom Teixeira,  Massachusetts Computer Corporation.  Westford MA
	...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt   (617) 692-6200 x275