[perl4ever]

Yes, I was describing a world without insurance. I'm saying a world with insurance and without any of what you call charity is strictly speaking impossible. And therefore the separation between insurance and what you call charity is spurious.

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.

[conanbatt]

> I'm saying a world with insurance and without any of what you call charity is strictly speaking impossible

Truly don't get this. Insurance discriminates before the fact: it's a framework to gauge risk, and collect a premium for managing it. There is no charity involved in that process.