4 ms·

> >On the contrary. People complain about stuff like this all the time. > Yes. Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people". The whol

> >On the contrary. People complain about stuff like this all the time. > Yes. Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people". The whole point of insurance is to create a risk pool. The more information one has, the less sense it makes to have insurance at all. For example, suppose you had a genetic condition that made it a near-certainty you'd die of cancer. Under your model, no one would sell you cancer insurance. On the other side of the coin, suppose you had a genetic condition that made you virtually immune to cancer. In that case, you'd be foolish to buy cancer insurance. The insurance industry seems determined to slice and dice its way into irrelevancy.

memefrog 3y ago
>The whole point of insurance is to create a risk pool. The more information one has, the less sense it makes to have insurance at all. Yes! Exactly. This is my entire point. The point of insurance is to spread around randomness, bad luck. >For example, suppose you had a genetic condition that made it a near-certainty you'd die of cancer. Under your model, no one would sell you cancer insurance. Yes, this is already how the world works already. This isn't "my model" it is just how insurance already works. It is based on an assessment of risk. Note that you may still be able to get the insurance, but all you would be doing is hedging against the risk you get it sooner or later than you would expect to get it on average. Might still be useful if you have a mortgage and a young family. >On the other side of the coin, suppose you had a genetic condition that made you virtually immune to cancer. In that case, you'd be foolish to buy cancer insurance. Yes obviously...? This is why the first category exists too. If you allow people that know they're higher risk to insure but allow people that know they're lower risk not to, then insurance doesn't work. This is why you have a legal duty to disclose all relevant information in your possession to your insurance company.
zen928 3y ago
> Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people". I don't see backpedaling, I see a semi-concerted effort between two random individuals on what looks to be a prime opportunity to engage in their favorite pasttime: talking past the point and taking arguments with the least charitable interpretation to be able to definitively resolve a useless binary answer on a complicated subject. you've been able to make them specify "no ignorant people" when they're making the claim, but why stop there? would any more drilling help qualify their statement further, like questioning the demographics of people that they interact with? how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? have they surveyed and done single blind studies on finding out the proclaimable truth to the statement that "no one" truly makes this claim? maybe they can adjust their statement to add more conditionals on what should be assumed premises: how about people who actively try to be illogical in arguments, they would disagree right? how about children who don't know anything about insurance, did they specify an age range where "no one" is applicable? or is it possible you can read a statement like "no one would ___" to automatically not include people who would act/think/behave irrationally without needing a disclaimer and list of provided sources? would it have been a good use of time to get any more clarification on the meaning of their statement with the included groups of people, or does the pedantic question framing to reach your "gotcha" and win the pointless online argument justify the narcissistic means?
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  He made an obviously false statement. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Q.E.D. Neither of us is "talking past the point", either. > how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? Speaking of "talking past the point"...the race thing was just an example. Many people complain about insurance discrimination for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

memefrog 3y ago

>The whole point of insurance is to create a risk pool. The more information one has, the less sense it makes to have insurance at all. Yes! Exactly. This is my entire point. The point of insurance is to spread around randomness, bad luck. >For example, suppose you had a genetic condition that made it a near-certainty you'd die of cancer. Under your model, no one would sell you cancer insurance. Yes, this is already how the world works already. This isn't "my model" it is just how insurance already works. It is based on an assessment of risk. Note that you may still be able to get the insurance, but all you would be doing is hedging against the risk you get it sooner or later than you would expect to get it on average. Might still be useful if you have a mortgage and a young family. >On the other side of the coin, suppose you had a genetic condition that made you virtually immune to cancer. In that case, you'd be foolish to buy cancer insurance. Yes obviously...? This is why the first category exists too. If you allow people that know they're higher risk to insure but allow people that know they're lower risk not to, then insurance doesn't work. This is why you have a legal duty to disclose all relevant information in your possession to your insurance company.

zen928 3y ago

> Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people". I don't see backpedaling, I see a semi-concerted effort between two random individuals on what looks to be a prime opportunity to engage in their favorite pasttime: talking past the point and taking arguments with the least charitable interpretation to be able to definitively resolve a useless binary answer on a complicated subject. you've been able to make them specify "no ignorant people" when they're making the claim, but why stop there? would any more drilling help qualify their statement further, like questioning the demographics of people that they interact with? how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? have they surveyed and done single blind studies on finding out the proclaimable truth to the statement that "no one" truly makes this claim? maybe they can adjust their statement to add more conditionals on what should be assumed premises: how about people who actively try to be illogical in arguments, they would disagree right? how about children who don't know anything about insurance, did they specify an age range where "no one" is applicable? or is it possible you can read a statement like "no one would ___" to automatically not include people who would act/think/behave irrationally without needing a disclaimer and list of provided sources? would it have been a good use of time to get any more clarification on the meaning of their statement with the included groups of people, or does the pedantic question framing to reach your "gotcha" and win the pointless online argument justify the narcissistic means?

Turing_Machine 3y ago
He made an obviously false statement. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Q.E.D. Neither of us is "talking past the point", either. > how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? Speaking of "talking past the point"...the race thing was just an example. Many people complain about insurance discrimination for reasons that have nothing to do with race.