4 ms·
> Any insurance is a conflict of interest. * * Except group catastrophic Ultimately, it's a math problem that must have a positive answer for the insurance co
by ethbr0 5y ago
> Any insurance is a conflict of interest. *
* Except group catastrophic
Ultimately, it's a math problem that must have a positive answer for the insurance company. If 100% of policyholders make claims, you generally pay that profit yourself.
However, in group catastrophic policy, the numbers add up. Substantially <100% of people file claims, so premiums can be set much lower, effectively giving you protection against an unlikely scenario at reasonable cost.
My grandfather was an actuary, and constantly griped that low-deductible policies shouldn't even be called "insurance."
If you want to create something like a national health benefit, do so. But don't confuse people by mislabeling it.
- Aerroon 5y ago>Ultimately, it's a math problem that must have a positive answer for the insurance company. If 100% of policyholders make claims, you generally pay that profit yourself. Not necessarily. Simply holding onto large piles of other people's money can he profitable - eg banks.
- pc86 5y agoThat's part of the math problem.
- dragonwriter 5y agoGroup catastrophic, like all other insurance, is negative expected value in first-order effects, but improves predictability. This is not fundamentally different from low-deductible policies. (Which may do more, proportionately to cost, to improve predictability if most variance is the number of frequency of low-cost events)
- throwawayboise 5y agoFor those who use them. I avoid doctors as much as possible, so if I see one it is likely closer to a catastrophic situation than routine. I would much rather have cheap catastrophic insurance than more expensive low-deductible, because I am unlikely to use the latter.
- rdtwo 5y agoWhy not call it a buying club? You basically use volume to force negotiation of lower price