3 ms·

Assuming the future is known, there is no risk and therefor need to take an insurance. It's better to keep the money and remove the insurance admin overhead. C

Assuming the future is known, there is no risk and therefor need to take an insurance. It's better to keep the money and remove the insurance admin overhead. Call me cynical but in practice I think that kind of asymmetric information is only going to serve the insurer to rake in bigger benefits.

dboreham 8y ago
Except under the US system you have no idea what the actual doctors and hospitals of the future will charge you for any given procedure or service.
- VLM 8y ago
  Cynically its as much as they think they can get. The pricing game is between the insurance companies and the providers; the end recipients of services have no involvement in the decision making process. Its kind of like cattle, veterinarians, and ranchers. The cattle don't have much of a say in the finances or what treatments they get. The ranchers want them to feel good to make them easier to control, but ...
netcan 8y ago
Yes true. I was just trying to demonstrate a point, and it's easier with absolutes. The real world scenario is that a combination of better startistics/ML, and access to a lot more data moves us increasingly closer to that world where medical insurance doesn't make any sense. Insurance works for unknown/unknowable situations. Spontaneous combustion insurance is cheap because it could happen to anyone.
Someone 8y ago
”and therefore no need to take an insurance” I disagree. The “the lucky should share in the costs of the unlucky” aspect of insurance still is there; the difference is that, in a perfect information world with self-serving individuals, the need still is there for the unlucky, but the lucky won’t be willing to take part.
- zimbatm 8y ago
  The argument was based on the premise that the insurer would drop anyone that would cost more than they pay. In that system everyone who pays the insurance would be better off putting the money aside as they wouldn't have to pay for the admin overhead. Even if the catastrophic event happens early in the timeline it would probably be better to take out a loan than to pay the insurance.

dboreham 8y ago

Except under the US system you have no idea what the actual doctors and hospitals of the future will charge you for any given procedure or service.

VLM 8y ago
Cynically its as much as they think they can get. The pricing game is between the insurance companies and the providers; the end recipients of services have no involvement in the decision making process. Its kind of like cattle, veterinarians, and ranchers. The cattle don't have much of a say in the finances or what treatments they get. The ranchers want them to feel good to make them easier to control, but ...

netcan 8y ago

Yes true. I was just trying to demonstrate a point, and it's easier with absolutes. The real world scenario is that a combination of better startistics/ML, and access to a lot more data moves us increasingly closer to that world where medical insurance doesn't make any sense. Insurance works for unknown/unknowable situations. Spontaneous combustion insurance is cheap because it could happen to anyone.

Someone 8y ago

”and therefore no need to take an insurance” I disagree. The “the lucky should share in the costs of the unlucky” aspect of insurance still is there; the difference is that, in a perfect information world with self-serving individuals, the need still is there for the unlucky, but the lucky won’t be willing to take part.

zimbatm 8y ago
The argument was based on the premise that the insurer would drop anyone that would cost more than they pay. In that system everyone who pays the insurance would be better off putting the money aside as they wouldn't have to pay for the admin overhead. Even if the catastrophic event happens early in the timeline it would probably be better to take out a loan than to pay the insurance.