4 ms·

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.

4 ms·

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...

by triceratops 2y ago

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.