4 ms·

Considering that insurance companies cannot exclude by law, aren't you paying for those things even if you go for private insurance over public insurance?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The issue is not exclusion, it's actuarial pricing. If companies can't exclude, but can charge people their expected cost, insurance works just fine and fitness vegetable girl doesn't subsidize hypochondriac unprotected gay junkie glutton. The latter person just pays a lot more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Lyapunov_CLT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Lyapunov...
- thatcat 11y ago
  The first problem then is how the insurance company determines that you're a junkie glutton because the sources of information from which they conceivably have access(search engine results, super market discount card, and other aggregated data sources), do not correlate 1 to 1 with behaviour. In addition to this, there is no mechanism of appeal in which one could contest their appraisal. Then there is also the issue that the working poor buy shittier food because it's cheaper and more convenient, so their business logic creates a paradox where the assumption that all behaviour’s can be modified and accounted for economically really stops making sense. Trying to hold poor people accountable for their poverty by increase their costs of living can't possibly work and a major health crisis currently is diabetes which is directly related to the cheapest and most sugar filled things eaten disproportionally by mostly poor peole (in the US anyway, thanks to cheap corn). This is true in other ways as well, for example commute time is related to housing cost, stress is related to driving time, stress is related to poor health. Increased commute time can lead to less sleep, less sleep leads to poor health. there are probably infinitely more... Live in a trailer? You're being exposed constantly to toxins being emitted by the fibre board that everything in your house is made from; by "insurance" logic people that live in trailers make bad health decisions and should be charged more so that the cost of living in trailers is the same as the cost of living some where non toxic. So then should we subsidize housing instead? or let that person become homeless. tldr; being poor = 'bad health behaviour' and so poor people will be disproportionately punished for their existing poverty with additional poverty.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The article is pretty explicitly discussing new ways for insurance companies to get better data on your lifestyle. The poor don't buy overeat because it's cheaper. Those poor (mostly obese) diabetics you discuss could have saved money by consuming less food. That's fine - they can make their own choices, apparently they value twinkies over health. But it's not right to force the rest of us to pay for those choices. In much the same way, it's not right to force third parties to live with pollution just so a factory owner can save money by not upgrading his machines.
    - thatcat 11y ago
      Its not about twinkies. meat comes in different grades. Produce without pesticides cost more. The cheapest food - rice contains levels of arsenic that become a problem when eaten every day. It stops being a choice when you can't afford the other options. The factory owner could also discontinue pollution by simply shutting down.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

The issue is not exclusion, it's actuarial pricing. If companies can't exclude, but can charge people their expected cost, insurance works just fine and fitness vegetable girl doesn't subsidize hypochondriac unprotected gay junkie glutton. The latter person just pays a lot more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Lyapunov_CLT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem#Lyapunov...

thatcat 11y ago
The first problem then is how the insurance company determines that you're a junkie glutton because the sources of information from which they conceivably have access(search engine results, super market discount card, and other aggregated data sources), do not correlate 1 to 1 with behaviour. In addition to this, there is no mechanism of appeal in which one could contest their appraisal. Then there is also the issue that the working poor buy shittier food because it's cheaper and more convenient, so their business logic creates a paradox where the assumption that all behaviour’s can be modified and accounted for economically really stops making sense. Trying to hold poor people accountable for their poverty by increase their costs of living can't possibly work and a major health crisis currently is diabetes which is directly related to the cheapest and most sugar filled things eaten disproportionally by mostly poor peole (in the US anyway, thanks to cheap corn). This is true in other ways as well, for example commute time is related to housing cost, stress is related to driving time, stress is related to poor health. Increased commute time can lead to less sleep, less sleep leads to poor health. there are probably infinitely more... Live in a trailer? You're being exposed constantly to toxins being emitted by the fibre board that everything in your house is made from; by "insurance" logic people that live in trailers make bad health decisions and should be charged more so that the cost of living in trailers is the same as the cost of living some where non toxic. So then should we subsidize housing instead? or let that person become homeless. tldr; being poor = 'bad health behaviour' and so poor people will be disproportionately punished for their existing poverty with additional poverty.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The article is pretty explicitly discussing new ways for insurance companies to get better data on your lifestyle. The poor don't buy overeat because it's cheaper. Those poor (mostly obese) diabetics you discuss could have saved money by consuming less food. That's fine - they can make their own choices, apparently they value twinkies over health. But it's not right to force the rest of us to pay for those choices. In much the same way, it's not right to force third parties to live with pollution just so a factory owner can save money by not upgrading his machines.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    Its not about twinkies. meat comes in different grades. Produce without pesticides cost more. The cheapest food - rice contains levels of arsenic that become a problem when eaten every day. It stops being a choice when you can't afford the other options. The factory owner could also discontinue pollution by simply shutting down.