4 ms·

> Most insurers will not insure you unless you are at risk of a loss. This is why it is non-obvious. There is no risk of loss without a gamble. As you point ou

> Most insurers will not insure you unless you are at risk of a loss. This is why it is non-obvious. There is no risk of loss without a gamble. As you point out, insurance only comes into play when you are gambling – you cannot insure that which you have not gambled on. So if gambling is wrong, why is a tool to help you gamble right?

refurb 2y ago
> you cannot insure that which you have not gambled on That doesn't follow at all. People don't buy houses to "gamble it doesn't burn down". Not in the sense of the word "gamble" is being used.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Right, people gamble on houses to provide them shelter. Insurance hedges against the risk of losing.
  - refurb 2y ago
    No, they buy houses to provide them shelter. Just using the world “gamble” in a sentence doesn’t make it so.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > No, they buy houses to provide them shelter. While the odds are good, buying a house does not guarantee shelter. One has to place a bet that the house will provide the shelter that they seek. If one loses (e.g. the house burns down), that's it. It was all for not. The loss is very much real. The only way you get to play again is to buy a different house[1]. Literally gambling. However, one can hedge the risk of the gamble by also purchasing insurance. With the right insurance, the insurance will help buy another house in which one can take another bet on. So, again, insurance may not be gambling[2], but it is a tool used to help one gamble. It has no applicability outside of gambling. > Just using the world “gamble” in a sentence doesn’t make it so. Are you confusing gambling with gambling for the sake of entertainment? You have a point that buying a house or selling insurance is not like playing a state lottery or casino games. However, that is not what the article is about[3], nor would any reasonable person think that is the only form of gambling. [1] Repairing it, if possible, but as far as this discussion goes that is the same as buying a different house. [2] From the buyer's point of view. The insurer gambles (in turn, hedged by reinsurance) when a policy is sold. [3] It does not seem to be able to find any difference between gambling and (selling) insurance. It is not written about fun games of chance.

refurb 2y ago

> you cannot insure that which you have not gambled on That doesn't follow at all. People don't buy houses to "gamble it doesn't burn down". Not in the sense of the word "gamble" is being used.

randomdata 2y ago
Right, people gamble on houses to provide them shelter. Insurance hedges against the risk of losing.
- refurb 2y ago
  No, they buy houses to provide them shelter. Just using the world “gamble” in a sentence doesn’t make it so.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > No, they buy houses to provide them shelter. While the odds are good, buying a house does not guarantee shelter. One has to place a bet that the house will provide the shelter that they seek. If one loses (e.g. the house burns down), that's it. It was all for not. The loss is very much real. The only way you get to play again is to buy a different house[1]. Literally gambling. However, one can hedge the risk of the gamble by also purchasing insurance. With the right insurance, the insurance will help buy another house in which one can take another bet on. So, again, insurance may not be gambling[2], but it is a tool used to help one gamble. It has no applicability outside of gambling. > Just using the world “gamble” in a sentence doesn’t make it so. Are you confusing gambling with gambling for the sake of entertainment? You have a point that buying a house or selling insurance is not like playing a state lottery or casino games. However, that is not what the article is about[3], nor would any reasonable person think that is the only form of gambling. [1] Repairing it, if possible, but as far as this discussion goes that is the same as buying a different house. [2] From the buyer's point of view. The insurer gambles (in turn, hedged by reinsurance) when a policy is sold. [3] It does not seem to be able to find any difference between gambling and (selling) insurance. It is not written about fun games of chance.