The same video could be used to show insurance companies that since only a small proportion of houses are burgled each year, that door locks should be optional and that it would be unfair for insurance companies to charge a higher premium for freedom loving businesses that have no door locks.
In that case, freedom loving no-lockers would have marches holding signs saying that everyone keeping their gold & jewels locked up was a mind controlled sheep, while all of the other people who wanted to actually lock doors would make arguments about the insurance industry not being able to cope with the surge in burglaries.
“Actually I would suggest that the lockdown be optional for people willing to pay increased health insurance premiums.”
I don’t think that is possible, since insurance is an industry that must act in the public interest.
So for instance, if an insurance company began offering insurance to prostitutes and their clients that would permit them to engage in unprotected sex, where the insurance company would pay for all costs associated should any sexually transmitted disease be contracted, the insurance contract wouldn’t be upheld (and the insurance company penalised for misconduct) because even though participants consented to purchasing the contract and engaging in unprotected sex, the further consequences of rampant disease go against the public interest.
“In the context of US health insurance…. that could….. hardly be more mistaken.”
Acting for the public interest underpins basic insurance law and is the reason that insurance companies are allowed to exist. The fact that the Americans allowed their systems to be turned into a giant, abusive money extraction machine doesn’t change that.
Besides, the US health industry only bankrupts people. In China they murder people, then use their organs to pay for the health system that Chinese insurers use.
Well South African insurance companies estimated that the lockdown could cause more than 10 times as many deaths as Covid due to then long term affects of hunger resulting from job losses.
Sure, but I could as easily argue that any large numbers of deaths from such things as hunger are more the result of government failure than the virus itself, while also saying that since SA insurance companies use the same “experts” as everyone else, that the statement is a bit dubious anyway.
By the way, my last couple of posts sound much more abrasive/meaner in written form than they sound in my mind. Test isn’t being friendly at all today.
SA insurance companies are very familiar with government failure. It was assumed as part of the model. SA is somewhat unique in having a dysfunctional government as well as experts who can analyze these things. And they are actually allowed to publish their findings.
Plenty of places with dysfunctional governments just imposed lockdowns with no analysis at all.
“SA insurance companies are very familiar with government failure. It was assumed as part of the model.”
If that is correct, then my thoughts align with what the insurance companies are saying, with the difference being that I named government failure as being a singular major causal factor, while SA insurance companies considered and used that causal factor to make their prediction but didn’t name it.
So, if we keep up with this thread of conversation, we might accidentally talk past each other and think that we are arguing when we aren’t.
Anyway I’m simply a little dubious about any big claim to do with the pandemic, especially when the claim includes weasel words like “could”. Sure, 10 times more people “could” die, but 10 times less “could” die too. At the very least I’d like to see an insurance company commit to a position and say something like “according to our calculations, x percent more people will die if x thing happens, which we think there is a x percent chance of happening.”
At least that way we would be able to look at a few of their public claims or statements in a row to see how accurate the insurance company is, so that we could decide whether or not to take their words seriously.
Clarissa's Blog 
The same video could be used to show insurance companies that since only a small proportion of houses are burgled each year, that door locks should be optional and that it would be unfair for insurance companies to charge a higher premium for freedom loving businesses that have no door locks.
In that case, freedom loving no-lockers would have marches holding signs saying that everyone keeping their gold & jewels locked up was a mind controlled sheep, while all of the other people who wanted to actually lock doors would make arguments about the insurance industry not being able to cope with the surge in burglaries.
🙂
LikeLike
Actually I would suggest that the lockdown be optional for people willing to pay increased health insurance premiums.
Since the people most at risk are retired, the actual increase in premiums for students and working age adults could be fairly minimal.
LikeLike
“Actually I would suggest that the lockdown be optional for people willing to pay increased health insurance premiums.”
I don’t think that is possible, since insurance is an industry that must act in the public interest.
So for instance, if an insurance company began offering insurance to prostitutes and their clients that would permit them to engage in unprotected sex, where the insurance company would pay for all costs associated should any sexually transmitted disease be contracted, the insurance contract wouldn’t be upheld (and the insurance company penalised for misconduct) because even though participants consented to purchasing the contract and engaging in unprotected sex, the further consequences of rampant disease go against the public interest.
LikeLike
” insurance is an industry that must act in the public interest”
In the context of US health insurance…. that could….. hardly be more mistaken.
LikeLike
“In the context of US health insurance…. that could….. hardly be more mistaken.”
Acting for the public interest underpins basic insurance law and is the reason that insurance companies are allowed to exist. The fact that the Americans allowed their systems to be turned into a giant, abusive money extraction machine doesn’t change that.
Besides, the US health industry only bankrupts people. In China they murder people, then use their organs to pay for the health system that Chinese insurers use.
LikeLike
Well South African insurance companies estimated that the lockdown could cause more than 10 times as many deaths as Covid due to then long term affects of hunger resulting from job losses.
LikeLike
Sure, but I could as easily argue that any large numbers of deaths from such things as hunger are more the result of government failure than the virus itself, while also saying that since SA insurance companies use the same “experts” as everyone else, that the statement is a bit dubious anyway.
By the way, my last couple of posts sound much more abrasive/meaner in written form than they sound in my mind. Test isn’t being friendly at all today.
LikeLike
SA insurance companies are very familiar with government failure. It was assumed as part of the model. SA is somewhat unique in having a dysfunctional government as well as experts who can analyze these things. And they are actually allowed to publish their findings.
Plenty of places with dysfunctional governments just imposed lockdowns with no analysis at all.
LikeLike
“SA insurance companies are very familiar with government failure. It was assumed as part of the model.”
If that is correct, then my thoughts align with what the insurance companies are saying, with the difference being that I named government failure as being a singular major causal factor, while SA insurance companies considered and used that causal factor to make their prediction but didn’t name it.
So, if we keep up with this thread of conversation, we might accidentally talk past each other and think that we are arguing when we aren’t.
Anyway I’m simply a little dubious about any big claim to do with the pandemic, especially when the claim includes weasel words like “could”. Sure, 10 times more people “could” die, but 10 times less “could” die too. At the very least I’d like to see an insurance company commit to a position and say something like “according to our calculations, x percent more people will die if x thing happens, which we think there is a x percent chance of happening.”
At least that way we would be able to look at a few of their public claims or statements in a row to see how accurate the insurance company is, so that we could decide whether or not to take their words seriously.
LikeLike