3 ms·

Right, but people that have gotten into a lot of car accidents pay higher premiums than people with accident-free records. Insurance is not socialism. If my ri

by umvi 6y ago

Right, but people that have gotten into a lot of car accidents pay higher premiums than people with accident-free records. Insurance is not socialism. If my risk of getting into a car accident is low, shouldn't I pay low premiums? Why should I subsidize bad drivers?

isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
Why should you pay higher premiums for color of skin or sexual orientation? After all you don't choose these. Same goes for your DNA. I think we already have precedents which go further. With ADA you have to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Some of them are disabled purely by chance, but some are disabled because they are dumb (they dived head on and are now on a wheelchair). No difference under that law.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  In some circumstances (life, disability, and long term care insurance are not compulsory nor necessary in all situations), you should pay for risk you incur, whether by choice or not. This isn’t about race or sex (and the discrimination argument made), but the underlying genetics that present as those traits (and any risks, such as premature death or the need for extended assisted care, that come along for the ride). Using systems like social security and universal healthcare are better models if the desire is to ignore identifying and pricing risk (as insurance does) and spread the costs across the population with less admin overhead.
BobbyJo 6y ago
I think the idea is to spread risk without promoting risk taking, therefore increasing total cost to society. Pricing risky behaviors I'm all for (speeding, accidents, smoking, obesity in most circumstances), as it lowers the cost to society by penalizing the behavior and shifting the burden of the extra risk to the risk taker. With DNA, there is no change in the total cost to be made, the people with the genes will still be around and still need care whether or not you help them pay for it... Unless the goal is to make it more expensive for people with 'bad' genes to procreate. There's an argument to be made for that, but good luck making it...
acituan 6y ago
> Why should I subsidize bad drivers? You realize you still share the same roads with bad drivers, right? Insurance pool is the wrong level of abstraction to isolate bad driving. If anything, it puts our skin in the game to advocate for better education, prevention, licensing and enforcement on bad driving. This is almost the same for healthcare. Covid demonstrated one more time, state of public health is tightly connected to your individual health. There is no rugged individualism as far as the virus is concerned.

by umvi 6y ago

isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago

Why should you pay higher premiums for color of skin or sexual orientation? After all you don't choose these. Same goes for your DNA. I think we already have precedents which go further. With ADA you have to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Some of them are disabled purely by chance, but some are disabled because they are dumb (they dived head on and are now on a wheelchair). No difference under that law.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 6y ago
In some circumstances (life, disability, and long term care insurance are not compulsory nor necessary in all situations), you should pay for risk you incur, whether by choice or not. This isn’t about race or sex (and the discrimination argument made), but the underlying genetics that present as those traits (and any risks, such as premature death or the need for extended assisted care, that come along for the ride). Using systems like social security and universal healthcare are better models if the desire is to ignore identifying and pricing risk (as insurance does) and spread the costs across the population with less admin overhead.

BobbyJo 6y ago

I think the idea is to spread risk without promoting risk taking, therefore increasing total cost to society. Pricing risky behaviors I'm all for (speeding, accidents, smoking, obesity in most circumstances), as it lowers the cost to society by penalizing the behavior and shifting the burden of the extra risk to the risk taker. With DNA, there is no change in the total cost to be made, the people with the genes will still be around and still need care whether or not you help them pay for it... Unless the goal is to make it more expensive for people with 'bad' genes to procreate. There's an argument to be made for that, but good luck making it...

acituan 6y ago

> Why should I subsidize bad drivers? You realize you still share the same roads with bad drivers, right? Insurance pool is the wrong level of abstraction to isolate bad driving. If anything, it puts our skin in the game to advocate for better education, prevention, licensing and enforcement on bad driving. This is almost the same for healthcare. Covid demonstrated one more time, state of public health is tightly connected to your individual health. There is no rugged individualism as far as the virus is concerned.