4 ms·

It is a matter of fairness. The way insurance traditionally worked is that your cost was proportional to your risk; This is what actuaries do for a living. Insu

It is a matter of fairness. The way insurance traditionally worked is that your cost was proportional to your risk; This is what actuaries do for a living. Insurance companies live and die on actuarial tables. I was asked whether I smoked for my life insurance -- that was a fair question. Of course this will always be a crude estimate, but drug use voluntarily puts one in a higher risk category and actuaries can give you the numbers. Now this should not be the end of the story. I understand there are folks who need medical treatment that can not afford it. There should always be a mechanism to make sure folks get the necessary help. I would hope the church or some other private entity would step up -- and often do. If not, then the final catch is the government. The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. I don't claim to have a complete solution -- it is a difficult problem. I don't like extremes in either direction : completely privatized and completely government run are both bad solutions.

RankingMember 8y ago
> The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. This is demonstrably false when you consider the quality of coverage in places like France and Denmark. I find the fairness argument understandable from a distance, but it falls apart when you look closer and realize the amount of overhead involved in managing such a system where we make sure everyone pays according to their risk profile, which itself, would be dependent on numerous subjective measures not to mention the potential for intentional or unintentional inaccurate reporting. As an example, our tax dollars go to pay for infrastructure whether we're driving on the roads and bridges they pay for or not, and we don't pay more or get refunds if we use more or less roads. Would it be fairer to only charge you for roads you use? Absolutely, but it'd also be a ton of overhead to administer.

RankingMember 8y ago

> The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. This is demonstrably false when you consider the quality of coverage in places like France and Denmark. I find the fairness argument understandable from a distance, but it falls apart when you look closer and realize the amount of overhead involved in managing such a system where we make sure everyone pays according to their risk profile, which itself, would be dependent on numerous subjective measures not to mention the potential for intentional or unintentional inaccurate reporting. As an example, our tax dollars go to pay for infrastructure whether we're driving on the roads and bridges they pay for or not, and we don't pay more or get refunds if we use more or less roads. Would it be fairer to only charge you for roads you use? Absolutely, but it'd also be a ton of overhead to administer.