4 ms·

Because if you don't get snowboarding holiday insurance then you shouldn't be snowboarding but you can do anything else while you're on holiday. Meanwhile in t

Because if you don't get snowboarding holiday insurance then you shouldn't be snowboarding but you can do anything else while you're on holiday. Meanwhile in the US if you get kicked off your medical insurance with any kind of chronic illness then you either pay out the ass for basic treatment or die.

robertlagrant 2y ago
"Insurance companies can price in risk" implies "people with chronic illnesses get kicked off their insurance" seems a massive non sequitur.
- chii 2y ago
  but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning. The problem with medical insurance is that it's a flawed system in the US. Everybody gets sick, it's a near 100% chance guarantee, esp. as you age. Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures. Insurance for medical should be for _premium_ facilities, like private rooms, private nurses etc. Not for the treatment.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning. That is the case. If your house is currently on fire, no one will insure you. What are you doing about this awful situation? > Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures. You seem to be extremely US-centric. You can't differentiate between "how the US does insurance" and "fundamental truths about insurance". This discussion is not just a proxy for an incredibly well-worn, and separate, conversation on US healthcare.

robertlagrant 2y ago

"Insurance companies can price in risk" implies "people with chronic illnesses get kicked off their insurance" seems a massive non sequitur.

chii 2y ago
but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning. The problem with medical insurance is that it's a flawed system in the US. Everybody gets sick, it's a near 100% chance guarantee, esp. as you age. Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures. Insurance for medical should be for _premium_ facilities, like private rooms, private nurses etc. Not for the treatment.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning. That is the case. If your house is currently on fire, no one will insure you. What are you doing about this awful situation? > Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures. You seem to be extremely US-centric. You can't differentiate between "how the US does insurance" and "fundamental truths about insurance". This discussion is not just a proxy for an incredibly well-worn, and separate, conversation on US healthcare.