3 ms·
It seems to me that risk pooling kind of negates of the intent of insurance, ie. to spread out risk.
by thijson 8mo ago
It seems to me that risk pooling kind of negates of the intent of insurance, ie. to spread out risk.
- engelo_b 8mo ago[dead]
- jimjimjim 8mo agoThis might sound crazy, but what if everyone in the country gave extra and as a result everyone in the country was covered?
- bluGill 8mo agowhy would I agree to that when I'm not at risk of that? (Assume for discussion I have had this tested - whatever it is). I have my own life and like everyone more things (including vacation...) I want to spend it money on than I have money.
- christophilus 8mo agoSome of us think that a key aspect of society is that we take care of each other. If something terrible happens to you before you manage to amass a fortune, it’s nice to live in a society that won’t leave your family destitute.
- mlrtime 8mo agoThe problem I see is a meta problem to your statement. 1) We should do whatever it takes to take care of each other no matter the cost, equality 2) The actual details on how to do that for every person in every dimension is not affordable, meaning decisions have to be made to violate rule #1 So now we are back to politics and deciding which ones are more fair than others. So writing your sentence maybe true, but it's actually naive at the same time to think it can be done in every situation.
- christophilus 8mo agoTrue, but reductio ad absurdum is a good way to make any argument look silly without actually considering nuance. Of course, there's some limit to what society will do to save an individual. If someone is lost at sea, we'll try to save them, but we won't spend $1T rerouting all of our available naval capabilities to do it. How much should we spend? The math isn't clear, and thus the economics aren't clear. But, where we should fall is somewhere on a gradient between "Every man for himself" and "Save every individual at all costs." The question is, where do we fall on that gradient?
- SirMaster 8mo agoSome of us don't like paying for other people who make objectively bad decisions that cause them to need to be bailed out in some way. There's nothing wrong with taking care of others, but there has to be limits. Hopefully the limits are designed in ways that encourage objectively good choices and discourage objectively bad ones.
- acuozzo 8mo ago> I have my own life ... which is not truly separate from the society in which you live. If life sucks for your countrymen, then you (not! the royal-you, I mean you: bluGill) will inevitably be stuck dealing with the consequences. Neighborhoods & communities atomize. Crime increases. Fascism creeps in. The list goes on.
- bluGill 8mo agoThings are not that simple. Spending money on the toys/experiences I want also increases my community. As does investing in the future. Helping the poor does increase society as well, but it isn't clear which investment helps society the most (there is no one correct answer).
- girvo 8mo agoWell of course, the actual intent of insurance today is to make profit.