3 ms·

Maybe but I'm more concerned about a) easily demonstrable and measurable risks not being addressed and b) separating people from the consequences of their own c

Maybe but I'm more concerned about a) easily demonstrable and measurable risks not being addressed and b) separating people from the consequences of their own choices. Ignoring risk and consequences doesn't make them go away.

azinman2 2y ago
What about the 60 year old with autoimmune issues? That have expensive drugs but it wasn’t “their actions” that led to this? The entire system only works if healthy 30 year olds are putting in somewhat similarly (it will be cheaper regardless). Insurance is based on the idea of spreading risk. Without it insurance cannot function.
AlexandrB 2y ago
On the subject of (b), shouldn't tobacco companies be paying the risk premium for their customers? Why does the buck stop at the individual consumers and not those making money from their misery? To put it into more technical, economic terms: why should the individual tobacco consumer bear the full cost of their externalities while the tobacco company does not?
- caseysoftware 2y ago
  > why should the individual tobacco consumer bear the full cost of their externalities while the tobacco company does not? Because people are well aware that smoking is dangerous and can freely choose to smoke or not.
  - Temporary_31337 2y ago
    Definitely disagree with at least the ‘can freely choose to not smoke’ Nicotine is highly addictive much more so than many illegal drugs.
    - caseysoftware 2y ago
      Don't use quotation marks if you're going to rephrase what I said.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    The tobacco company (also composed of people) is well aware of the health consequence of smoking to its customers yet freely chooses to continues to sell tobacco products. Where's the difference? Actually it's much worse than that. The tobacco company is not just selling tobacco products, it's marketing them and actively encouraging their use!
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  > shouldn't tobacco companies be paying the risk premium for their customers How would that even work? Any such tax would be priced in into the price of the product. It doesn’t really matter if the government is collecting it directly or through the tobacco companies. Or if we wanted tobacco companies to pay for all the damage they did retroactively they would just go bankrupt, since they don’t have even remotely enough cash/assets to cover it.

azinman2 2y ago

What about the 60 year old with autoimmune issues? That have expensive drugs but it wasn’t “their actions” that led to this? The entire system only works if healthy 30 year olds are putting in somewhat similarly (it will be cheaper regardless). Insurance is based on the idea of spreading risk. Without it insurance cannot function.

AlexandrB 2y ago

On the subject of (b), shouldn't tobacco companies be paying the risk premium for their customers? Why does the buck stop at the individual consumers and not those making money from their misery? To put it into more technical, economic terms: why should the individual tobacco consumer bear the full cost of their externalities while the tobacco company does not?

caseysoftware 2y ago
> why should the individual tobacco consumer bear the full cost of their externalities while the tobacco company does not? Because people are well aware that smoking is dangerous and can freely choose to smoke or not.
- Temporary_31337 2y ago
  Definitely disagree with at least the ‘can freely choose to not smoke’ Nicotine is highly addictive much more so than many illegal drugs.
  - caseysoftware 2y ago
    Don't use quotation marks if you're going to rephrase what I said.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  The tobacco company (also composed of people) is well aware of the health consequence of smoking to its customers yet freely chooses to continues to sell tobacco products. Where's the difference? Actually it's much worse than that. The tobacco company is not just selling tobacco products, it's marketing them and actively encouraging their use!
ywvcbk 2y ago
> shouldn't tobacco companies be paying the risk premium for their customers How would that even work? Any such tax would be priced in into the price of the product. It doesn’t really matter if the government is collecting it directly or through the tobacco companies. Or if we wanted tobacco companies to pay for all the damage they did retroactively they would just go bankrupt, since they don’t have even remotely enough cash/assets to cover it.