4 ms·
No, we should not 'strive to eliminate' them. The entire point of insurance is that it is based on risk assessments that are as accurate as possible, using all
by memefrog 3y ago
No, we should not 'strive to eliminate' them. The entire point of insurance is that it is based on risk assessments that are as accurate as possible, using all the information that is available. It is not a wealth redistribution mechanism, but a randomness redistribution system. If you know that you have an illness, and don't tell your insurance company, then you're a fraudster. If you know you have a genetic predisposition to illness, that's no different.
Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. There are specific lists of special reasons, and discrimination on those bases is considered bad and has widely been made unlawful. Usually, insurance is an exception! And it should be. I don't see why men should subsidise the health insurance of women or why women should subsidise the car insurance of men. I don't see why the young should subsidise the health insurance of the old. That's not the point of insurance.
- ghusbands 3y agoYou're pushing a very limited view of insurance, here. There are plenty of cases in the world where insurance is a "randomness redistribution system" across a whole population, where the lottery of genetics is also considered part of that randomness, avoiding building in discrimination.
- memefrog 3y agoDo you have any examples?
- ghusbands 3y agoHealth insurance in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, among others, cannot charge more for pre-existing conditions. If you include state-provided care, then health care in basically every EU country, as a core principle of the EU is that everyone has the right to timely access to affordable, preventive, and curative health care of good quality. Also, it's law in many countries that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of protected characteristics, no matter the mechanism or how unfair it may seem to those with privilege.
- coldtea 3y ago>No, we should not 'strive to eliminate' them. The entire point of insurance is that it is based on risk assessments that are as accurate as possible, using all the information that is available. And we should change the law so that point of insurance is made illegal, and insurance companies can only use generic, broad, information about a person, not bend over so that they can maximize their profit margins and minimize their risks.
- memefrog 3y agoIt's not about making more money for them. It's about making sure I am not subsidising you and you are not subsidising me.
- timschmidt 3y agoSeems like you're thinking of personal savings accounts. The whole point of insurance is that everyone subsidizes the poor souls who end up needing it. Understanding that the tables could easily be turned.
- memefrog 3y agoInsurance is about spreading unknown risk. If it is known that you have a higher risk of being paid out then you pay a higher premium. You are hedging against future bad luck (future in the sense of the point in time of the discovery of claimable damage, not when the damage actually occurred, of course).
- timschmidt 3y agoI think you have been misled. It seems to me that all insurance is purchased to hedge against known risks. Risks like death, which comes for us all. Risks like forest fires, hurricanes, and many other regularly occurring natural disasters. Risks like unemployment which will effect nearly everyone at some point in their life. If the risks were unknown, no one would know that they should be buying insurance to hedge against them.