4 ms·

The CEOs will hire private security, expense it to the company, which causes pressure to raise insurance premiums.

by gorbachev 2y ago

throwaway48476 2y ago
Having private security around all the time makes it way harder to cheat on your spouse.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  ...why?
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    There's the risk of them talking. Also if you visibly have security it's way more likely people will take pictures of you and post them.
  - gorbachev 2y ago
    It's difficult to eliminate witnesses, if they're physical security professionals. j/k
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eesmith 2y ago
  Didn't seem to bother JFK, though it did cause "morale problems" with the Secret Service. Thought it's true, they weren't private security.
buran77 2y ago
Still not ideal for the life loving CEO. Anyone who had to go around with a security detail because of genuine threats to their lives knows it's a crap situation. Plenty of your customers may have nothing to lose. It's just a matter of kicking off the trend and way more people start seeing options like this, previously considered crazy, as more and more realistic.
ben_w 2y ago
> which causes pressure to raise insurance premiums. Why aren't premiums already as high as the market will bear? Or, given the theme of both headline and several comments on this story, higher than it will bear?
- wholinator2 2y ago
  Because it's not a market. I work, and thus have no choice which insurance i'd like. There's only one plan which is even remotely affordable and that's the one provided by my job. If that insurance plan decides to deny me life saving, essential medications, i can't just switch. Health insurance is a necessity, it shouldn't be a market. We can see that since everyone stopped pursuing anti trust every single industry has either or is in the process of being completely captured by some big fish, eating everyone else up and squeezing consumers to the maximal amount possible. I for one, don't think we should be basing the cost of survival on the _maximum possible the market will bear_. Inevitably that will lead to it being far above some people's means, an ever increasing number of them. I don't enjoy the look of a future which involves revolts and assassinations but what option are we giving people? When health insurance companies kill the people that matter most in your life, what do you really have to lose? When the systems stop caring about preservation of human life, why should the people care about preserving the system? Why, they might actively become hostile to it. Even if it's a system which is merely survivable for the majority of people (maximum cost the market will bear), enough disenfranchised people _will_ take their power back, even if it takes the whole thing down. And in their lives, with their experiences, they're right
dredmorbius 2y ago
In an ambush game, the ambusher need succeed only once, the ambushee always. The best security is a society which doesn't promote ambush attacks, whether out of general respect, lawfulness, or a belief in institutional mechanisms (business practices, fair marketplaces, civil and criminal courts, penal systems). Attempting to bolt on security where such a society doesn't exist is quite fraught. The attempts will likely be expensive and lossy.

The CEOs will hire private security, expense it to the company, which causes pressure to raise insurance premiums.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Having private security around all the time makes it way harder to cheat on your spouse.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
...why?
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  There's the risk of them talking. Also if you visibly have security it's way more likely people will take pictures of you and post them.
- gorbachev 2y ago
  It's difficult to eliminate witnesses, if they're physical security professionals. j/k
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 2y ago
Didn't seem to bother JFK, though it did cause "morale problems" with the Secret Service. Thought it's true, they weren't private security.

buran77 2y ago

Still not ideal for the life loving CEO. Anyone who had to go around with a security detail because of genuine threats to their lives knows it's a crap situation. Plenty of your customers may have nothing to lose. It's just a matter of kicking off the trend and way more people start seeing options like this, previously considered crazy, as more and more realistic.

ben_w 2y ago

> which causes pressure to raise insurance premiums. Why aren't premiums already as high as the market will bear? Or, given the theme of both headline and several comments on this story, higher than it will bear?

wholinator2 2y ago
Because it's not a market. I work, and thus have no choice which insurance i'd like. There's only one plan which is even remotely affordable and that's the one provided by my job. If that insurance plan decides to deny me life saving, essential medications, i can't just switch. Health insurance is a necessity, it shouldn't be a market. We can see that since everyone stopped pursuing anti trust every single industry has either or is in the process of being completely captured by some big fish, eating everyone else up and squeezing consumers to the maximal amount possible. I for one, don't think we should be basing the cost of survival on the _maximum possible the market will bear_. Inevitably that will lead to it being far above some people's means, an ever increasing number of them. I don't enjoy the look of a future which involves revolts and assassinations but what option are we giving people? When health insurance companies kill the people that matter most in your life, what do you really have to lose? When the systems stop caring about preservation of human life, why should the people care about preserving the system? Why, they might actively become hostile to it. Even if it's a system which is merely survivable for the majority of people (maximum cost the market will bear), enough disenfranchised people _will_ take their power back, even if it takes the whole thing down. And in their lives, with their experiences, they're right

dredmorbius 2y ago

In an ambush game, the ambusher need succeed only once, the ambushee always. The best security is a society which doesn't promote ambush attacks, whether out of general respect, lawfulness, or a belief in institutional mechanisms (business practices, fair marketplaces, civil and criminal courts, penal systems). Attempting to bolt on security where such a society doesn't exist is quite fraught. The attempts will likely be expensive and lossy.