4 ms·

I was once dating a woman who had vertically contracted Hepatitis C during her birth. We had an accident before I had completed my normal vaccination course. Th

by rosser 7y ago

I was once dating a woman who had vertically contracted Hepatitis C during her birth. We had an accident before I had completed my normal vaccination course. The first-line treatment in those cases is a dose of immunoglobulin containing the relevant antibodies. My insurance gave two choices: pay $800 out of pocket for the drug at any pharmacy that carries it (zero coverage offered, no recourse), take it to my doctor's office by hand, and get it injected there; or go to the ER and have it done one-stop there (at a cost of $300 to me and at least $3000 to them). Fine, guys. It's your money...

alistairSH 7y ago
Fine, guys. It's your money... Except it's not their money. It's all of our money, as the whole point of insurance is pooling resources to hedge against any individual risk. Not that I blame you - the implementation of some policies is completely asinine.
- rosser 7y ago
  It's "theirs" in that they're the ones with absolute discretion over its disposition. It's a turn of phrase, and not meant to be taken strictly literally.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Sure, but the fact remains that by sending you to an ER instead of a GP's office caused an increase in cost to everybody in your risk pool. It's an inefficiency that shouldn't exist.
    - rosser 7y ago
      > It's an inefficiency that shouldn't exist. I completely agree. I think it's an absurdity that shouldn't exist. My point in sharing my anecdote was to validate the prevalence of the absurdity that my comment's parent observed, though I probably could have been more explicit about that.
- someguydave 7y ago
  The only fair way to distribute rare goods is to the highest bidder
  - ShroudedNight 7y ago
    This is landing squarely in Poe's law territory. Notwithstanding, this is only possibly true under a model where everyone initially has equal opportunity. A weak requirement that is almost certainly insufficient, and yet one we have already failed miserably at.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      Distribution of rare goods and services to the highest bidder is fair because it puts everyone on an even playing field with the same rules. What other method of distribution achieves this?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by rosser 7y ago

alistairSH 7y ago

Fine, guys. It's your money... Except it's not their money. It's all of our money, as the whole point of insurance is pooling resources to hedge against any individual risk. Not that I blame you - the implementation of some policies is completely asinine.

rosser 7y ago
It's "theirs" in that they're the ones with absolute discretion over its disposition. It's a turn of phrase, and not meant to be taken strictly literally.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Sure, but the fact remains that by sending you to an ER instead of a GP's office caused an increase in cost to everybody in your risk pool. It's an inefficiency that shouldn't exist.
  - rosser 7y ago
    > It's an inefficiency that shouldn't exist. I completely agree. I think it's an absurdity that shouldn't exist. My point in sharing my anecdote was to validate the prevalence of the absurdity that my comment's parent observed, though I probably could have been more explicit about that.
someguydave 7y ago
The only fair way to distribute rare goods is to the highest bidder
- ShroudedNight 7y ago
  This is landing squarely in Poe's law territory. Notwithstanding, this is only possibly true under a model where everyone initially has equal opportunity. A weak requirement that is almost certainly insufficient, and yet one we have already failed miserably at.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    Distribution of rare goods and services to the highest bidder is fair because it puts everyone on an even playing field with the same rules. What other method of distribution achieves this?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]