Hacker News Reader

Comment by memefrog | Hacker News Reader

>On the contrary. People complain about stuff like this all the time.

Yes. Ignorant people do. They lose the argument because they can't justify their position.

>What do you suppose would happen if insurance companies tried to charge black people more money, or simply refused to cover them for conditions related to high blood pressure?

Performative outrage from the insanely woke mainstream media, because racial issues drive ratings like nothing else.

Insurance companies wouldn't refuse to cover them for those conditions because it isn't good business sense, both for the above reason and because the rational thing is to charge a slightly higher premium.

Why should white people getting insurance subsidise the insurance of unhealthy people that make bad lifestyle choices just because those people happen to be black, but not otherwise?

View on HN

> >On the contrary. People complain about stuff like this all the time.

> Yes.

Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people".

The whole point of insurance is to create a risk pool. The more information one has, the less sense it makes to have insurance at all.

For example, suppose you had a genetic condition that made it a near-certainty you'd die of cancer. Under your model, no one would sell you cancer insurance.

On the other side of the coin, suppose you had a genetic condition that made you virtually immune to cancer. In that case, you'd be foolish to buy cancer insurance.

The insurance industry seems determined to slice and dice its way into irrelevancy.

> Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people".

I don't see backpedaling, I see a semi-concerted effort between two random individuals on what looks to be a prime opportunity to engage in their favorite pasttime: talking past the point and taking arguments with the least charitable interpretation to be able to definitively resolve a useless binary answer on a complicated subject.

you've been able to make them specify "no ignorant people" when they're making the claim, but why stop there? would any more drilling help qualify their statement further, like questioning the demographics of people that they interact with? how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? have they surveyed and done single blind studies on finding out the proclaimable truth to the statement that "no one" truly makes this claim?

maybe they can adjust their statement to add more conditionals on what should be assumed premises: how about people who actively try to be illogical in arguments, they would disagree right? how about children who don't know anything about insurance, did they specify an age range where "no one" is applicable?

or is it possible you can read a statement like "no one would ___" to automatically not include people who would act/think/behave irrationally without needing a disclaimer and list of provided sources?

would it have been a good use of time to get any more clarification on the meaning of their statement with the included groups of people, or does the pedantic question framing to reach your "gotcha" and win the pointless online argument justify the narcissistic means?

He made an obviously false statement.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Q.E.D.

Neither of us is "talking past the point", either.

> how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking?

Speaking of "talking past the point"...the race thing was just an example. Many people complain about insurance discrimination for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

>The whole point of insurance is to create a risk pool. The more information one has, the less sense it makes to have insurance at all.

Yes! Exactly. This is my entire point. The point of insurance is to spread around randomness, bad luck.

>For example, suppose you had a genetic condition that made it a near-certainty you'd die of cancer. Under your model, no one would sell you cancer insurance.

Yes, this is already how the world works already. This isn't "my model" it is just how insurance already works. It is based on an assessment of risk.

Note that you may still be able to get the insurance, but all you would be doing is hedging against the risk you get it sooner or later than you would expect to get it on average. Might still be useful if you have a mortgage and a young family.

>On the other side of the coin, suppose you had a genetic condition that made you virtually immune to cancer. In that case, you'd be foolish to buy cancer insurance.

Yes obviously...? This is why the first category exists too. If you allow people that know they're higher risk to insure but allow people that know they're lower risk not to, then insurance doesn't work. This is why you have a legal duty to disclose all relevant information in your possession to your insurance company.

> Insurance companies wouldn't refuse to cover them for those conditions because it isn't good business sense

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

"While the best-known examples involve denial of credit and insurance, also sometimes attributed to redlining in many instances are denial of healthcare and the development of food deserts in minority neighborhoods."

I have no idea what dumb woke gotcha this is meant to be

It's a woke conspiracy called "historical facts" which forces you to waste all your time on the internet trying to convince people that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

None of what you linked to has anything at all to do with the definition of the word 'insurance', which existed as a concept before your shitty, racist, backwater colony even existed you stupid, ignorant, parochial American exceptionalist.

You losers know nothing about history, geography or law. Your entire legal system is a running joke amongst lawyers in every other country in the world. Your "supreme court" spent 100 years being an activist political body, finally is saved by (of all people) a clown President, ans gets crucified for being "politicised" when it points out that a constitutional amendment that was passed in the era when every single state and every single country in the world banned abortion as murder probably shouldnt be interpreted as making it a constitutional right.

You are a joke country and a joke person. Fuck off.

Wait... are we flirting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com