3 ms·
> High risk applicants should pay more. I disagree because I believe that everyone should have health insurance. Forcing people to pay different amounts for in
by floe 8y ago
> High risk applicants should pay more.
I disagree because I believe that everyone should have health insurance. Forcing people to pay different amounts for insurance isn't much of 'insurance' at all, then, in my view. At the very least, there should be some limit on the difference in amounts that people pay; in the hypothetical I gave, that difference would grow as predictions become more and more accurate.
I think this is a pretty common position (at least the weaker construction), but if you disagree, I understand how the argument wouldn't work for you.
- scarejunba 8y agoYou do not require banning sharing of information in order to have universal healthcare. I am for the latter but against the banning.
- bhelkey 8y ago> Forcing people to pay different amounts for insurance isn't much of 'insurance' at all, then, in my view. I would argue that this is the core of insurance. I propose the following example: A thousand people have a 1% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$10. If company A offers insurance for $12, the company benefits by making $2 * 1000 and the individuals benefit by removing variance from their life. Lets add in a single person who has a 10% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$100. In a free market, why would A offer insurance for any amount less than $100? I am not saying that not everyone should have health insurance, but that perhaps insurance isn't the best system for healthcare.
- klipt 8y ago> perhaps insurance isn't the best system for healthcare Certainly insurance tied to your employer is stupid. Someone gets cancer, loses their job due to being temporarily disabled during treatment, loses their insurance with their job? What kind of useless "insurance" stops paying out the moment you get sick?