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