Posted on 10/01/2005 9:58:55 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
If half the people give them information and it is all true they come out ahead. If even 10% of the data they get is moonbeams then all the data becomes useless.
Either way it prevents them from building a useful database.
LOL...
I raised two sons, who became cheerleaders. Some of their friends gave them a hard time, but I know who spent the most time grabbing the cutest girls... and never heard any complaints. They won regional titles for their aerial work... I never asked about any extracurricular stuff. But, I know they were raised in a Christian home. Their mama wouldn't let them be rude. I never found any mags.
I tried to convince my daughters to stay in their bedrooms, until they turned 18, but they wouldn't dammit...
It was a good interview. Boring as sh***, but well done by all.
You are very wrong about that. Insurance companies have always used personal information to manage risk.
In the 60's I got placed in a national insurance data base because I have EKG that shows a left bundle branch block. Any time I have applied for life or health insurance if I have been "rated." The don't even need to give me a physical. They just look me (and you) up in that data base.
Auto insurance companies of always rated customers by zip code. High crime zip codes cost insurance companies more money thus they charge those customers higher premiums.
Home insurers used to visit the homes of the people they insure. They would change your premiums based up your life style appearance. If you did not take good care of your house, you were a higher risk customer. If your neighbor hood fire hydrant was too far from your house, you were a higher risk customer.
The concept of making the healthy you cover the risk of insuring the risky me is simply a form of socialism. It is a concept adored by the left and abhorrent to the (true) right.
Every time they ask me if I have one of their cards, with a sad face I tell the cashier, "My wife got it in the divorce." Any woman or man close by always quickly volunteers to let me use theirs.
The concept of making the healthy you cover the risk of insuring the risky me is simply a form of socialism. It is a concept adored by the left and abhorrent to the (true) right.
It's not a form of socialism. Any time risk is spread over a group is not socialism. However, what you are talking about is part of the "perfect storm" that will blow universal health care into existance.
The first part is a change in BK laws
The second part is the rising cost of medical insurance
And the third part is a growing number of uninsured currently playing havoc with the system.
Within ten years, if not sooner, there will no doubt be universal health care if insurers don't manage to look beyond quarterly earnings.
Hillary would approve of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.