[firethief]

> The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial wellbeing.

It's kind of sad that "this could kill you" is followed by "and think of the hospital bills"

[satellite2]

The goal is to onboard the insurance companies as a powerful lobby against the petrochemical one.

It's one of the most decried industry (the insurance one) but one of the nicest thing about it is that it almost always have its interests aligned with those of its customers (in group) and thus can act as one of the most powerful stabilizing force in society.

[Ericson2314]

I am not sure about that. Widespread ill-health that is managed not cured is funded by raising the rates. They got plenty of actuaries to take a "neutral position" with whatever bad shit is a public health disaster.

[satellite2]

It's easier, cleaner and more profitable to promote risk limiting behaviors and to keep the rate similar, apply partial discounts or delay discounts

[Ericson2314]

I think there is a only a few band of middlebrow jobs in the US where employers are cost sensitive. I think most shit jobs won't give you good benefits either way (by various legal mechanism), and most good jobs will buy at at any most price or there will be elite rebellion.

Thus, I conclude demand is is mostly (piecewise) inelastic enough that the increased profitability you speak of is thrown into serious doubt.

[jdhn]

This is quite possibly the most charitable take I've ever seen towards the insurace industry.

[nerdponx]

Meh, even in a socialized/single-payer/public/whatever system, someone at some point has to pay for it. Whether that's you right now, or the taxpayers collectively over time. More sickness means more money spent on trying to heal and care for sick people.