4 ms·

It'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 ago
Seems 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 ago
  Insurance 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 ago
    I 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.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      >against known risks. Risks like death, which comes for us all. Risks like forest fires, hurricanes, and many other regularly occurring natural disasters. These are clearly not known risks. If you knew when you were going to die, you would not purchase life insurance, as the total premiums due by the date of your death would equal or exceed the insured amount. If you knew a forest fire was bearing down on your house, you wouldn't be able to insure against it. And in many areas prone to forest fires, you cannot insure against them, because they are so likely to occur. Hurricanes and flooding are similar: build on a floodplain and you will either pay exorbitant amounts for, or be unable to purchase, flooding insurance. > Risks like unemployment which will effect nearly everyone at some point in their life This is not true, and even if it were the risk you are hedging against is that it will happen to YOU at an unpredictable time. That is obviously completely different from insuring yourself against a risk that has a higher chance of affecting you than the average person and expecting that risk not to be factored into your premiums. > If the risks were unknown, no one would know that they should be buying insurance to hedge against them. Do you just pattern match against words? Do you see "known risk" and just assume it means something I clearly did not mean and which makes absolutely no sense?
      - timschmidt 3y ago
        Me? Oh, I'm just curious how much effort you're going to put into being wrong on the internet. Want to keep going?
        memefrog 3y ago
        Weak response
        timschmidt 3y ago
        Definitely flirting.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    There's insurance from the point of "how we as an insurance company maximize profits" and insurance as "how we, as society, support a scheme to provide a net against various risks". Societies have no reason to ensure insurance companies maximize their profits. In fact, briberry and lobbying aside, they have all the reason to regulate them for modest profits and wider spread safety net. Thus health issues seen from DNA should be regulated to remain an unknown risk as far as insurance premiums go. Except if somebody is more concerned about maximum insurance company profits, than for public health. In that case, can they suggest an Ayn Rand book for someone new to the author?
    - memefrog 3y ago
      You are dreadfully confused. This has nothing to do with maximising health insurance company profits.
      - timschmidt 3y ago
        I think everyone's heard that one before.
        memefrog 3y ago
        What does this even mean? Stop assuming everyone in the world thinks the same way you do and has the same pants-on-head-retarded hatred of insurance companies. Guess what? Sane people in sane countries recognise that insurance isnt the best mechanism for accomplishing every social outcome. In fact, it is terrible at doing that for healthcare. So we dont use it that way. Instead, we do the sane thing of taxing people. Instead you insane parochial exceptionalists think "hurr durr ill force everyone to buy insurance and ban insurance from taking into account people's health, basically making it not insurance". Then it confuses stupid people like YOU into not knowing what the term means. Please microwave your balls. You are too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.
coldtea 3y ago
Subsidizing others is the whole point of insurance. It is not about your individual contributions matching the money you'll might need on a disaster scenario. It's "making money by taking from many and only giving to some". If it was about getting what you put in back, it would be a savings account.
- memefrog 3y ago
  No it isn't. Insurance is about spreading random risk - hedging against unknowns. It is not about redistributing risk from people that are at higher risk to people that are at lower risk.
  - chmod775 3y ago
    This statement is objectivity wrong, given that many counterexamples exist, such as purely income-based health insurance premiums in many countries.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      That is not insurance. It is a tax.
      - chmod775 3y ago
        You're trying really hard to redefine a bunch of words, yet the set of people you can meaningfully communicate with using your alternative language is small, so what is the point? It's on you to lead your texts with a disclaimer of what various words mean to you if you're not using them as they're commonly understood.
        memefrog 3y ago
        What drugs are you on? If you pay a percentage of your income mandated by the government for some service then that is income tax. Insurance is a private contract with premiums based on actuarial assessment of risk. This is not some distinction I have come up with. It is what the words have always meant. I am sorry that you have been misled to think insurance is some sort of government wealth redistribution program but that just isn't so.

timschmidt 3y ago

Seems 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 ago
Insurance 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 ago
  I 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.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    >against known risks. Risks like death, which comes for us all. Risks like forest fires, hurricanes, and many other regularly occurring natural disasters. These are clearly not known risks. If you knew when you were going to die, you would not purchase life insurance, as the total premiums due by the date of your death would equal or exceed the insured amount. If you knew a forest fire was bearing down on your house, you wouldn't be able to insure against it. And in many areas prone to forest fires, you cannot insure against them, because they are so likely to occur. Hurricanes and flooding are similar: build on a floodplain and you will either pay exorbitant amounts for, or be unable to purchase, flooding insurance. > Risks like unemployment which will effect nearly everyone at some point in their life This is not true, and even if it were the risk you are hedging against is that it will happen to YOU at an unpredictable time. That is obviously completely different from insuring yourself against a risk that has a higher chance of affecting you than the average person and expecting that risk not to be factored into your premiums. > If the risks were unknown, no one would know that they should be buying insurance to hedge against them. Do you just pattern match against words? Do you see "known risk" and just assume it means something I clearly did not mean and which makes absolutely no sense?
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      Me? Oh, I'm just curious how much effort you're going to put into being wrong on the internet. Want to keep going?
      - memefrog 3y ago
        Weak response
        timschmidt 3y ago
        Definitely flirting.
- coldtea 3y ago
  There's insurance from the point of "how we as an insurance company maximize profits" and insurance as "how we, as society, support a scheme to provide a net against various risks". Societies have no reason to ensure insurance companies maximize their profits. In fact, briberry and lobbying aside, they have all the reason to regulate them for modest profits and wider spread safety net. Thus health issues seen from DNA should be regulated to remain an unknown risk as far as insurance premiums go. Except if somebody is more concerned about maximum insurance company profits, than for public health. In that case, can they suggest an Ayn Rand book for someone new to the author?
  - memefrog 3y ago
    You are dreadfully confused. This has nothing to do with maximising health insurance company profits.
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      I think everyone's heard that one before.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        What does this even mean? Stop assuming everyone in the world thinks the same way you do and has the same pants-on-head-retarded hatred of insurance companies. Guess what? Sane people in sane countries recognise that insurance isnt the best mechanism for accomplishing every social outcome. In fact, it is terrible at doing that for healthcare. So we dont use it that way. Instead, we do the sane thing of taxing people. Instead you insane parochial exceptionalists think "hurr durr ill force everyone to buy insurance and ban insurance from taking into account people's health, basically making it not insurance". Then it confuses stupid people like YOU into not knowing what the term means. Please microwave your balls. You are too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.

coldtea 3y ago

Subsidizing others is the whole point of insurance. It is not about your individual contributions matching the money you'll might need on a disaster scenario. It's "making money by taking from many and only giving to some". If it was about getting what you put in back, it would be a savings account.

memefrog 3y ago
No it isn't. Insurance is about spreading random risk - hedging against unknowns. It is not about redistributing risk from people that are at higher risk to people that are at lower risk.
- chmod775 3y ago
  This statement is objectivity wrong, given that many counterexamples exist, such as purely income-based health insurance premiums in many countries.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    That is not insurance. It is a tax.
    - chmod775 3y ago
      You're trying really hard to redefine a bunch of words, yet the set of people you can meaningfully communicate with using your alternative language is small, so what is the point? It's on you to lead your texts with a disclaimer of what various words mean to you if you're not using them as they're commonly understood.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        What drugs are you on? If you pay a percentage of your income mandated by the government for some service then that is income tax. Insurance is a private contract with premiums based on actuarial assessment of risk. This is not some distinction I have come up with. It is what the words have always meant. I am sorry that you have been misled to think insurance is some sort of government wealth redistribution program but that just isn't so.