At 6:54 PM -0700 10/18/00, Yardena Arar + Christian Goetze wrote:
I almost never participate in this group, but here it's hard to resist.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
It's no longer gambling if the insurances get to see through the back of the cards. I think this is what the objection is about.
Gambling is about assessing risk and rewards and payoffs. A person seeking insurance knows things about his or her health that the prospective insurer may not know about. Likewise, the prospective insurer may come to know things about the candidate. This is the way markets in general have always worked. Economists talk about "preference revealing" and "selective disclosure of information." In this context, if either side wishes to reveal less than required by the other side, it can walk away from the deal. I can see why you have tended to not participate in this group. Keep it that way. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.