3 ms·

It's basically "no insurance, plus a credit to pay for the losses". Except that you start paying the rate before you incur the loss itself. I still think this

It's basically "no insurance, plus a credit to pay for the losses". Except that you start paying the rate before you incur the loss itself. I still think this form of "perfect insurance" is bad - part of what I like about the insurance is exactly the dispersion of cost in the larger population. Should a chronically-ill person pay a very high insurance, or should the society cover the costs? I'm in the second camp, even though I'm not chronically-ill. It's part of the benefits of having an actual society - we don't need to stand alone.

unpopular42 7y ago
That is indeed part of what people call insurance these days, but in fact it isn't one. It's just a social solidarity scheme, and no one has the balls to call it that way, so it gets mingled into insurance. Without getting into whether it's good or bad, it's just not the true meaning of the term "insurance."
- izacus 7y ago
  If "everyone" uses a word for something, then that is de facto the "true meaning" of a term.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    No. Even for vernacular natural language, it only matters what native speakers think. Wéijī will never quite mean "danger and opportunity," no matter how many people view it that way, because native Mandarin speakers don't view it that way.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    constantly having the prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate is tiresome and pedantic. what we call "health insurance" clearly works very differently than any other kind of insurance I'm familiar with. it's not wrong to try and maintain the distinction between two different concepts.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  You are definitely not a scotsman.
MagnumOpus 7y ago
There is a benefit in separating the parts that are actually just insurance that replaces low-probabily low frequency costs with a predictable payment (and thus can be efficiently provided by competing capitalist companies) with the parts that are social redistribution schemes. The latter are necessarily the government's remit, and the political discussion on whether they are desirable can be had in an informed manner if costs are clear and they are not commingled with insurance elements.
leetcrew 7y ago
healthcare is a bad fit for the concept of insurance. an obvious example is that people use their "insurance" to pay for routine doctors appointments which have highly predictable costs and are scheduled in advance. the chronically ill person in your example enrolls in insurance knowing upfront they will never pay enough in premiums to cover their claims. what we call "health insurance" is really just a payment planning and collective bargaining service rolled into one. it doesn't really work like most other kinds of insurance.

unpopular42 7y ago

That is indeed part of what people call insurance these days, but in fact it isn't one. It's just a social solidarity scheme, and no one has the balls to call it that way, so it gets mingled into insurance. Without getting into whether it's good or bad, it's just not the true meaning of the term "insurance."

izacus 7y ago
If "everyone" uses a word for something, then that is de facto the "true meaning" of a term.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  No. Even for vernacular natural language, it only matters what native speakers think. Wéijī will never quite mean "danger and opportunity," no matter how many people view it that way, because native Mandarin speakers don't view it that way.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  constantly having the prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate is tiresome and pedantic. what we call "health insurance" clearly works very differently than any other kind of insurance I'm familiar with. it's not wrong to try and maintain the distinction between two different concepts.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
You are definitely not a scotsman.

MagnumOpus 7y ago

There is a benefit in separating the parts that are actually just insurance that replaces low-probabily low frequency costs with a predictable payment (and thus can be efficiently provided by competing capitalist companies) with the parts that are social redistribution schemes. The latter are necessarily the government's remit, and the political discussion on whether they are desirable can be had in an informed manner if costs are clear and they are not commingled with insurance elements.

leetcrew 7y ago

healthcare is a bad fit for the concept of insurance. an obvious example is that people use their "insurance" to pay for routine doctors appointments which have highly predictable costs and are scheduled in advance. the chronically ill person in your example enrolls in insurance knowing upfront they will never pay enough in premiums to cover their claims. what we call "health insurance" is really just a payment planning and collective bargaining service rolled into one. it doesn't really work like most other kinds of insurance.