|
|
|
|
|
|
by conanbatt
2767 days ago
|
|
|
You are describing a world without insurance: where each incident bears its full results on the bearer. This is the situation with almost anything you do everyday: from eating to crossing the street, to wearing helmets on electric scooters. Insurance as a product is a way to manage that risk, but it doesnt eliminate it, and as a product it makes the total cost higher, as you need to pay to manage the risk. Insurance itself always bears the risk of adverse selections: it attracts those that will have higher tendencies to abuse the insurance. That is the nature of insurance, what it solves and why it requires human effort to manage, it can't be automated away: it is an economic solution. Another problem would be: some people have very expensive medical treatment and we should not as a society let them die or suffer death from it. But that problem is not soluble through insurance, that is soluble through charity and charity alone. Using insurance as a mechanism of charity is using a hammer on a screw. |
|
|
Insurance cannot exist and solve any problem if insurers are able to discriminate perfectly, so it cannot be a matter of principle that they should be able to discriminate to any arbitrary degree.
The idea that insurers are inherently justified in discriminating against poor risks is a nihilistic attack on the idea of insurance.
Total information awareness would lead to perfect discrimination and the annihilation of insurance, so you cannot justify by a principled argument discrimination against those you don't like purely on the basis that insuring them is charity.