41 ms·

> - You want people in the pool to be similar risks. If they aren't and they know they aren't the low risk people will decide they don't need to insure, leaving

> - You want people in the pool to be similar risks. If they aren't and they know they aren't the low risk people will decide they don't need to insure, leaving everyone else with a higher average cost. Also, the high risk people will see a good deal and join. Adverse selection. I think that is not necessary, and is a choice we have to make for our society. For example, for health, do we want "sicker" persons to pay more, leaving healthy people the choice to not pay ? Or should we make it mandatory for everyone to pay what they can afford, and insure everyone, even high risks people ? For cars, it might be a little different, but I think I'd rather have a system where everyone pays the same, and insurance is mandatory (although it's not as critical as health care).

xwolfi 5y ago
Yes but there's also a time factor: do you want young people to pay while healthy. When you're young you want to think only abt yourself, when you're old you want younger people to think abt you so :D
- elcomet 5y ago
  Yeah, that's why I think everyone should pay, not based on their age, but on their ressources.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Do you think there should be differences based on lifestyle? For instance, should someone that works out everyday pay the same as someone who is 400 pounds?
    - elcomet 5y ago
      I think they should both pay based on their income, not their lifestyle.
      - thatguy0900 5y ago
        That seems really unfair to me. I would definitely be against that system. If someone chooses to smoke or heavily drink or eat too much it shouldn't be my responsibility to subsidize them.
        AlotOfReading 5y ago
        Just to explore the idea further, are you also against care for people who get snake bites while hiking, have a beer once a week, or choose to live in an area with environmental toxins?
        thatguy0900 5y ago
        I mean, it's about the statistical consequences of your lifestyle. I would expect hiking overall to have a positive impact on your health and health expenses statistically even with the risk of a snakebite, and a beer a week to have no impact at all. I'm talking about the people who come home and drink whiskey every night. And I'm not against my insurance paying for peoples care, I'm against paying the same insurance rate as them. Health insurance should be higher if you live in a area with high environmental toxins, as well, sure. Should everyone in the country carry flood insurance so that people in flood planes can pay less? It seems to me a lot of this is about responsibility to society, but that only goes one way. If it's my responsibility to pay into social Healthcare, why is it not their responsibility to not be a heavy smoker, or morbidly obese, or a heavy drinker? It seems to me that the moral tables are turned around in this argument, where I'm a bad person for not wanting to pay, but they arnt bad people for doing things that virtually garuntee they will need payouts.
        snakeboy 5y ago
        I suspect the people who are "virtually guaranteed" to need payouts are a small population compared to the majority of people that live somewhere in the gray zone between the two extremes. Then, to quantify the people in that gray zone, it becomes a question of which variables to we include? Sure, alcohol is bad, and junk food is bad. But what is junk food precisely? And if you run ultra-marathons, it surely doesn't matter as much. If you live in a city with higher pollution, if you drive a cheaper older car with a worse safety rating, if you work two jobs and thus have higher stress levels, on and on. And if we're talking about social healthcare, do you really want a faceless bureaucracy to be tasked with calculating those risks and putting a price on all your life choices?
tshaddox 5y ago
Universal health care is basically a special case of “people in the pool having similar risk,” because the idea is to have only one pool with everyone in it. The “with everyone in it” part solves the adverse selection problem.
- choeger 5y ago
  But health care is, or rather shouldn't be, an insurance. Otherwise the company would say: "Sorry to hear you got cancer, here's your cheque. Please don't bother us anymore, as we terminate our contract. All the best." Health care is more like a flatrate plan where some people receive much more intensive service.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Arguably a taxpayer funded service is still a form of insurance. In the UK we pay "national insurance" which is a form of income taxation (but gets accounted for separately), much if which gies towards paying for our health service.
  - LeegleechN 5y ago
    A fixed rate plan for something with unknown and highly variable costs is just about the definition of insurance.
    - choeger 5y ago
      I don't think so. At least every insurance I ever bought had very precise definitions of the monetary obligations for each party. I think the highest would be my car's mandatory insurance (capped at, I think 20M€ per damaged person). My health "insurance" doesn't have such a cap. In fact, they are forced by law to pay for everything that I would ever need from a certain catalog of services. Also, the rates are not negotiable in my case but a fixed percentage of my income. It's similar for the pension "insurance" which is more like a perpetual pyramid scheme than an insurance.
      - 5y ago

xwolfi 5y ago

Yes but there's also a time factor: do you want young people to pay while healthy. When you're young you want to think only abt yourself, when you're old you want younger people to think abt you so :D

elcomet 5y ago
Yeah, that's why I think everyone should pay, not based on their age, but on their ressources.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Do you think there should be differences based on lifestyle? For instance, should someone that works out everyday pay the same as someone who is 400 pounds?
  - elcomet 5y ago
    I think they should both pay based on their income, not their lifestyle.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      That seems really unfair to me. I would definitely be against that system. If someone chooses to smoke or heavily drink or eat too much it shouldn't be my responsibility to subsidize them.
      - AlotOfReading 5y ago
        Just to explore the idea further, are you also against care for people who get snake bites while hiking, have a beer once a week, or choose to live in an area with environmental toxins?
        thatguy0900 5y ago
        I mean, it's about the statistical consequences of your lifestyle. I would expect hiking overall to have a positive impact on your health and health expenses statistically even with the risk of a snakebite, and a beer a week to have no impact at all. I'm talking about the people who come home and drink whiskey every night. And I'm not against my insurance paying for peoples care, I'm against paying the same insurance rate as them. Health insurance should be higher if you live in a area with high environmental toxins, as well, sure. Should everyone in the country carry flood insurance so that people in flood planes can pay less? It seems to me a lot of this is about responsibility to society, but that only goes one way. If it's my responsibility to pay into social Healthcare, why is it not their responsibility to not be a heavy smoker, or morbidly obese, or a heavy drinker? It seems to me that the moral tables are turned around in this argument, where I'm a bad person for not wanting to pay, but they arnt bad people for doing things that virtually garuntee they will need payouts.
        snakeboy 5y ago
        I suspect the people who are "virtually guaranteed" to need payouts are a small population compared to the majority of people that live somewhere in the gray zone between the two extremes. Then, to quantify the people in that gray zone, it becomes a question of which variables to we include? Sure, alcohol is bad, and junk food is bad. But what is junk food precisely? And if you run ultra-marathons, it surely doesn't matter as much. If you live in a city with higher pollution, if you drive a cheaper older car with a worse safety rating, if you work two jobs and thus have higher stress levels, on and on. And if we're talking about social healthcare, do you really want a faceless bureaucracy to be tasked with calculating those risks and putting a price on all your life choices?

tshaddox 5y ago

Universal health care is basically a special case of “people in the pool having similar risk,” because the idea is to have only one pool with everyone in it. The “with everyone in it” part solves the adverse selection problem.

choeger 5y ago
But health care is, or rather shouldn't be, an insurance. Otherwise the company would say: "Sorry to hear you got cancer, here's your cheque. Please don't bother us anymore, as we terminate our contract. All the best." Health care is more like a flatrate plan where some people receive much more intensive service.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Arguably a taxpayer funded service is still a form of insurance. In the UK we pay "national insurance" which is a form of income taxation (but gets accounted for separately), much if which gies towards paying for our health service.
- LeegleechN 5y ago
  A fixed rate plan for something with unknown and highly variable costs is just about the definition of insurance.
  - choeger 5y ago
    I don't think so. At least every insurance I ever bought had very precise definitions of the monetary obligations for each party. I think the highest would be my car's mandatory insurance (capped at, I think 20M€ per damaged person). My health "insurance" doesn't have such a cap. In fact, they are forced by law to pay for everything that I would ever need from a certain catalog of services. Also, the rates are not negotiable in my case but a fixed percentage of my income. It's similar for the pension "insurance" which is more like a perpetual pyramid scheme than an insurance.
    - 5y ago