Hacker News Reader

Comment by Entangled | Hacker News Reader

What if a thousand people get together and put $100 each in the blockchain in order to cover emergencies for the unlucky 10% that may need aid in times of distress?

A society can't function if more than 10% of the population is in distress and that's exactly the purpose of insurance, the many helping the few, not the other way around.

But since insurance moves a lot of money (just like banking) and there is propensity to fraud and corruption, then it is highly regulated making it hard for newcomers to disrupt the market.

Start from the beginning again using technology, allow tech insurers to take from 100 and serve 10, that's it. Who to serve? That's the easy part, those in need.

View on HN

>A society can't function if more than 10% of the population is in distress and that's exactly the purpose of insurance, the many helping the few, not the other way around.

Who says you're going to get a random sampling of the population? Those more prone to needing insurance money are going to be more likely to sign up and thus drive that 10% much much higher.

Isn't that what a Healthcare Co-op is? Put your money into a pool and either you collectively decide or let the org decide who gets a check written out to help cover someone's costs that month. Your're saying put the money into a block chain though to make it transparent?

I'm a fan of that model coupled with Direct Primary Care which is a monthly subscription to unlimited access to your doctor.

The idea being that you use insurance or a co-op to cover major disasters like a big car accident. But you use Direct Primary Care like covering an oil or brake change.

I think you're proposing to start... an insurance company.

Why did you just throw "blockchain" in there. The path to insurance companies on any blockchain is pretty far, you need something to make decisions on if the claim is valid and how much to pay out. The cost of solving those problems on the blockchain will be higher than savings (IMO)

> the purpose of insurance, the many helping the few, not the other way around

This is too idealistic of a view of insurance. Insurance, if possible, would help the none as they are all companies in the end and want to maximize their dollar for their shareholders. This is why, before the ACA, things like pre-existing conditions and other, costly things were used to decline someone coverage.

Insurance companies need to make their numbers which means they will drop anything not required.

In theory the many helping the few is done through various programs powered by tax money. I'm not convinced we'll ever get to an ideal state of everyone being covered if the only mechanism is capitalism.

Interesting idea. But wouldn't the value of the coin just drop when a disaster occurred, so those who need the money wouldn't have nearly as much as they expected?

EDIT: Realized you never said coin. I just assumed blockchain + money = coin.

No, not a coin, it would be dollars, euros or whatever local currency. The blockchain is to keep track of the books in the public eye.

The pool of money is there until its depleted for the month with a cap of 10% per user, or it would rollover for the next month so more emergencies can be covered. A healthy society can build up a huge chest for when big emergencies hit.

If you want more coverage then you acquire a second tier risk insurance which has a bigger pool and different coverages so practically the market allocates resources more wisely.

But the blockchain doesn't actually deal with either of the problems the insurance industry aims to solve (assessing the legitimacy of claims, and keeping amounts paid in premiums in line with amounts paid in claims)

If people use your system honestly, it's likely more expensive than an insurance scheme, because your maximum claim in a given time period is a low multiple of your premium. If people don't use your system honestly and claim what they want when they want (because who cares if the permanent record says they made three maximum claims in consecutive months when there's no central authority to object) it's less stable than a Ponzi scheme.

For many emergencies aren't the issue. (I have CF, am relatively healthy, and my medications costs $40k a month at retail)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com