3 ms·

I must confess this does not seem to be a problem to me. Private insurance is not meant to be a welfare product. It is meant to be a risk transfer. In a comp

I must confess this does not seem to be a problem to me. Private insurance is not meant to be a welfare product. It is meant to be a risk transfer. In a competitive market the expected value should be slightly negative to the consumer as the insurance company needs to make a reasonable profit. An important aspect of the transaction is information symmetry. If you knew you had a terminal disease and only 3 months to live and could buy a $1 million life insurance policy after finding out the information and had no obligation to share the diagnosis with the insurance company, life insurance companies would all go bankrupt. If they raised their rates high enough to cover this scenario, non-terminally ill people would never be able to afford it (significantly negative expected value). This is the same issue with health and long term insurance. Once the genetic test is completed and the individual realizes they have a higher chance of getting ALS, the rate for their specific insurance should go up. They have a greater chance of having it pay out. Any other method either leads to bankrupt insurers. In my opinion, what Bill should have done is bought the long term care BEFORE he had the genetic test done.

d--b 2y ago
Insuring companies could mandate DNA tests before setting the contract price. As they already do with blood tests and ECG. Health insurance is not welfare - IN THE USA. With universal health care, it goes without saying that society as a whole covers for the people that are more at risk.
triceratops 2y ago
In other words private insurance is unable to make a profit while providing value to all customers. There's a word for businesses like that...
- gruez 2y ago
  A business? I'm not sure why you seem to have the impression that businesses should serve any and all customers, even at a loss to them.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Considering that a few minutes ago you made an argument which only holds if your interlocutor ignores that time exists, I think you'd be wise either to reconsider your precepts or declare your interest.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Considering that a few minutes ago you made an argument which only holds if your interlocutor ignores that time exists, ??? It's unclear how that has to do with this comment. >I think you'd be wise either to reconsider your precepts or declare your interest. I'd think you'd be wise to write a more cogent argument rather than vaguely gesturing at my prior comment, or implying I have a conflict of interest.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    They don't have to accept everyone as customers - subject to laws - but if they don't provide value to everyone who they take as customers, they're a shitty business.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >but if they don't provide value to everyone who they take as customers, they're a shitty business. What does this even mean? Not everyone has to buy from every business. If consumers aren't deriving value from a business, they can just refuse to buy said product/service. It'd be great if a business's TAM is everyone, but the fact that some people won't get value is hardly an indictment. I don't like fishing. You'd have to pay me go on a fishing expedition. In other words, a fishing gear business won't provide value to me. If I go against my interests and buy a bunch of fishing gear that won't provide value to me, that's hardly an indictment of the fishing shop.
motohagiography 2y ago
What we absolutely shouldn't be providing to insurers is tech that gives them an arbitrage over customers, whereby the risk asymmetry makes their product valueless. Even today most insurance is a scam to meet a "compliance" need for something else. that is, they have managed to get their product mandated, and it is a negative drag on the economy. They are rentiers who provide data and indirect tax revenue, and they do just fine thank you. This idea that insurers will be bankrupted by perverse incentives assumes a binary outcome, and ignores that insurers have operated without genetic information for a few centuries and yet somehow the industry persisted, and if we deprive them of it they will not survive. Please, it's time insurers had some skin in the game.
techjamie 2y ago
Seems like insurance companies could make a tidy profit by requiring all of their customers to get genetic tests, and then strategically deny those with high risk, and for the rest, raise their rates to unaffordable levels right before they hit the statistical age where the condition in question begins. Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being a late stage capitalism strategy.
- gruez 2y ago
  >raise their rates to unaffordable levels right before they hit the statistical age where the condition in question begins. >Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being a late stage capitalism strategy. How is your hypothetical any different than being able to buy car insurance 0.1s before a car crash? Sure, it'd be great for the driver, and it'd certainly be bad for the profits of the insurance company, but it'd be absurd to characterize it as "late stage capitalism".
  - techjamie 2y ago
    I'm saying that you get a health insurance policy, and the company requires you to submit a genetic test. Maybe you get that policy at age 30, but you have a genetic marker that, on average, means you will develop an expensive condition at an average age of 55. So you pay premiums for 20 years, but starting at age 50, your rates start to seriously climb. They continue to climb until you're priced out of keeping the insurance and have to drop the policy before your condition comes in, and nobody else will take you now. Besides, the taxpayers end up bailing out these companies constantly. The government is not going to bail out a random patient.

d--b 2y ago

Insuring companies could mandate DNA tests before setting the contract price. As they already do with blood tests and ECG. Health insurance is not welfare - IN THE USA. With universal health care, it goes without saying that society as a whole covers for the people that are more at risk.

triceratops 2y ago

In other words private insurance is unable to make a profit while providing value to all customers. There's a word for businesses like that...

gruez 2y ago
A business? I'm not sure why you seem to have the impression that businesses should serve any and all customers, even at a loss to them.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Considering that a few minutes ago you made an argument which only holds if your interlocutor ignores that time exists, I think you'd be wise either to reconsider your precepts or declare your interest.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Considering that a few minutes ago you made an argument which only holds if your interlocutor ignores that time exists, ??? It's unclear how that has to do with this comment. >I think you'd be wise either to reconsider your precepts or declare your interest. I'd think you'd be wise to write a more cogent argument rather than vaguely gesturing at my prior comment, or implying I have a conflict of interest.
- triceratops 2y ago
  They don't have to accept everyone as customers - subject to laws - but if they don't provide value to everyone who they take as customers, they're a shitty business.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >but if they don't provide value to everyone who they take as customers, they're a shitty business. What does this even mean? Not everyone has to buy from every business. If consumers aren't deriving value from a business, they can just refuse to buy said product/service. It'd be great if a business's TAM is everyone, but the fact that some people won't get value is hardly an indictment. I don't like fishing. You'd have to pay me go on a fishing expedition. In other words, a fishing gear business won't provide value to me. If I go against my interests and buy a bunch of fishing gear that won't provide value to me, that's hardly an indictment of the fishing shop.

motohagiography 2y ago

What we absolutely shouldn't be providing to insurers is tech that gives them an arbitrage over customers, whereby the risk asymmetry makes their product valueless. Even today most insurance is a scam to meet a "compliance" need for something else. that is, they have managed to get their product mandated, and it is a negative drag on the economy. They are rentiers who provide data and indirect tax revenue, and they do just fine thank you. This idea that insurers will be bankrupted by perverse incentives assumes a binary outcome, and ignores that insurers have operated without genetic information for a few centuries and yet somehow the industry persisted, and if we deprive them of it they will not survive. Please, it's time insurers had some skin in the game.

techjamie 2y ago

Seems like insurance companies could make a tidy profit by requiring all of their customers to get genetic tests, and then strategically deny those with high risk, and for the rest, raise their rates to unaffordable levels right before they hit the statistical age where the condition in question begins. Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being a late stage capitalism strategy.

gruez 2y ago
>raise their rates to unaffordable levels right before they hit the statistical age where the condition in question begins. >Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being a late stage capitalism strategy. How is your hypothetical any different than being able to buy car insurance 0.1s before a car crash? Sure, it'd be great for the driver, and it'd certainly be bad for the profits of the insurance company, but it'd be absurd to characterize it as "late stage capitalism".
- techjamie 2y ago
  I'm saying that you get a health insurance policy, and the company requires you to submit a genetic test. Maybe you get that policy at age 30, but you have a genetic marker that, on average, means you will develop an expensive condition at an average age of 55. So you pay premiums for 20 years, but starting at age 50, your rates start to seriously climb. They continue to climb until you're priced out of keeping the insurance and have to drop the policy before your condition comes in, and nobody else will take you now. Besides, the taxpayers end up bailing out these companies constantly. The government is not going to bail out a random patient.