← Back to context

Comment by pessimizer

2 years ago

Insuring massive populations isn't really insurance because of large numbers (there's no risk involved.) It's just an economic rent. It's a poker game where most of the players are cooperating.

Senior / elderly care can be enormously expensive. Especially towards end of life. I could agree with you if the population was all teen to 45 year olds but that is not realistic.

The same dynamics play out with pension schemes. Declining birth rates play havoc with proposals that rely on a large, young employed base who's work supports a small, retired set of pensioners.

My own perspective is that healthcare is extremely limited on the provider side. Professional organizations have been limiting the supply of doctors / doctor equivalents for decades. Not to minimize the work a family medicine or general practitioner puts in, but many important health services/early interventiona can be safely and reliably provided by a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant (what a horrible name) on a much larger and affordable scale then exists today.

  • I always believed that nurse practitioners would be just about as good at primary care as a doctor. But fuck me my nurse practitioner is useless. Like tons of British Columbia residents I don’t have a family doctor, so thought this would work. But they are afraid to do anything. At least a doctor will be confidently wrong like chat gpt.

Insuring populations that are too small/niche/finite or over which you have too much information and ability to price discriminate (i.e. charge them exactly the cost of insuring them) isn't insurance either.

It's a perverted cross between escrow and welfare in which the population basically pays their own way in the long run plus supports all the people who make their living by being "administrative overhead" along the way.