3 ms·

Are you actually condoning this practice? Speeding is a choice, one that's extremely easy to change, and it ultimately an exceedingly trivial matter. You are

by dkh 2y ago

Are you actually condoning this practice? Speeding is a choice, one that's extremely easy to change, and it ultimately an exceedingly trivial matter. You are born with your genetics, and you can’t change them. You are them. They will likely impact how and you die. All you can do is be aware of them so you can try to be proactive. So there’s really no comparison between that and voluntarily driving a car too fast If that’s genuinely how it worked, where the more health problems you are at risk for, the more money you have to pay, this would result in the people who already have the shittiest stuff to deal with in their lives having that compounded by also having to pay more than everybody else. Not sure what more needs to be said, but if there is anyone out there who is unconvinced, I probably won’t be inviting them to dinner parties anytime soon

tiahura 2y ago
Is it fair that life insurance for 90 year olds is rather expensive? Yes, because the foremost purpose of insurance is the quantification and management of uncertain risk. If someone has a higher probability of getting sick / dieing / getting in a wreck then the risk is different and should be priced accordingly. If you don’t, you’re not taking about insurance anymore. You’re talking about a wealth transfer system where good drivers subsidize the bad.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Tomato tomato. It's insurance on a societal level - the guarantee that your children, for example, will still be able to afford a medical policy the same as everyone else can even if they lose the genetic or developmental or whatever other lottery. There's no divine directive that states that risk sharing must be done by voluntarily joining a pool run by a private entity that's priced uniquely per individual. That's merely one way to go about it. To be fair it's the only sensible way for a private entity to go about it in the absence of legislation that prevents others from being more efficient. In the case of the US specifically, as long as everyone is forced to play by the same "inefficient" rules the free market will continue to work.

by dkh 2y ago

tiahura 2y ago

Is it fair that life insurance for 90 year olds is rather expensive? Yes, because the foremost purpose of insurance is the quantification and management of uncertain risk. If someone has a higher probability of getting sick / dieing / getting in a wreck then the risk is different and should be priced accordingly. If you don’t, you’re not taking about insurance anymore. You’re talking about a wealth transfer system where good drivers subsidize the bad.

fc417fc802 2y ago
Tomato tomato. It's insurance on a societal level - the guarantee that your children, for example, will still be able to afford a medical policy the same as everyone else can even if they lose the genetic or developmental or whatever other lottery. There's no divine directive that states that risk sharing must be done by voluntarily joining a pool run by a private entity that's priced uniquely per individual. That's merely one way to go about it. To be fair it's the only sensible way for a private entity to go about it in the absence of legislation that prevents others from being more efficient. In the case of the US specifically, as long as everyone is forced to play by the same "inefficient" rules the free market will continue to work.