[quote]malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.[/quote]
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think another option would be to outlaw health Insurance, make everybody pay cash
The market will have a third-party set the price for life-saving procedures, no matter who or what is outlawed. If it is not insurance companies doing the price-setting, it would merely be banks or doctors doing it instead.
Life-saving procedures are a specific good that the market cannot effectively price if the demand for the procedure stems from those whose lives are being saved.
While it sounds grisly, the market simply must have a third-party put a dollar value on the lives of individual patients, and it will do so no matter what regulations exist.[/quote]
I agree with this. One of the reasons healthcare is such a thorny problem is that market demands are not capable of driving every aspect of it (see above life saving procedures), as they are in other areas of insurance or life. There will always be an oversight by a third party of some kind.
Just because you can never have a purely market demand driven scheme however, is no reason to remove most or ALL market drivers by getting the gov’t to take over and regulate to death. That is not the answer.
[quote]orion wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
[/quote]
It’s certainly a flawed analogy, but I like it anyway. In some sense it is true–you buy a lottery ticket with almost no chance of winning the large cash award. In a similar but opposite sense, you (if responsible and alert) buy car insurance with a low chance of ever using it. The chance is not nearly as low as that of winning the lottery, but it IS driven by fear–the fear of needing to pay out large sums in a wreck and not being able to. The lottery is driven by an irrational hope that you will be the lucky bastard that gets the money.
Not that the high level classes aren’t needed in insurance. Of course specific training is needed.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
It’s certainly a flawed analogy, but I like it anyway. In some sense it is true–you buy a lottery ticket with almost no chance of winning the large cash award. In a similar but opposite sense, you (if responsible and alert) buy car insurance with a low chance of ever using it. The chance is not nearly as low as that of winning the lottery, but it IS driven by fear–the fear of needing to pay out large sums in a wreck and not being able to. The lottery is driven by an irrational hope that you will be the lucky bastard that gets the money.
Not that the high level classes aren’t needed in insurance. Of course specific training is needed.[/quote]
The very idea of calling an investment rational or not is a value judgment. If the opportunity to win big is worth a few dollars to someone who are you to say it is irrational?
[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
It’s certainly a flawed analogy, but I like it anyway. In some sense it is true–you buy a lottery ticket with almost no chance of winning the large cash award. In a similar but opposite sense, you (if responsible and alert) buy car insurance with a low chance of ever using it. The chance is not nearly as low as that of winning the lottery, but it IS driven by fear–the fear of needing to pay out large sums in a wreck and not being able to. The lottery is driven by an irrational hope that you will be the lucky bastard that gets the money.
Not that the high level classes aren’t needed in insurance. Of course specific training is needed.
The very idea of calling an investment rational or not is a value judgment. If the opportunity to win big is worth a few dollars to someone who are you to say it is irrational?
[/quote]
You’re being liberal calling it an investment. It’s gambling. The odds of winning are so astronomical that I consider any hope to be irrational based on the almost certain outcome of you losing. You want to play it for fun, that’s fine. That’s why I gamble at the tables, or play poker. I would consider playing poker an investment based on a skilled player and the possible manipulation of probability before I would consider playing the lottery one.
“In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of value [after considered analysis] with an expectation of favorable future returns.”
Placing money into a vehicle that has a substantial risk of losing the principal sum, or without thorough analysis, is speculation by definition… not investment.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
It’s certainly a flawed analogy, but I like it anyway. In some sense it is true–you buy a lottery ticket with almost no chance of winning the large cash award. In a similar but opposite sense, you (if responsible and alert) buy car insurance with a low chance of ever using it. The chance is not nearly as low as that of winning the lottery, but it IS driven by fear–the fear of needing to pay out large sums in a wreck and not being able to. The lottery is driven by an irrational hope that you will be the lucky bastard that gets the money.
Not that the high level classes aren’t needed in insurance. Of course specific training is needed.
The very idea of calling an investment rational or not is a value judgment. If the opportunity to win big is worth a few dollars to someone who are you to say it is irrational?
You’re being liberal calling it an investment. It’s gambling. The odds of winning are so astronomical that I consider any hope to be irrational based on the almost certain outcome of you losing. You want to play it for fun, that’s fine. That’s why I gamble at the tables, or play poker. I would consider playing poker an investment based on a skilled player and the possible manipulation of probability before I would consider playing the lottery one.
“In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of value [after considered analysis] with an expectation of favorable future returns.”
Placing money into a vehicle that has a substantial risk of losing the principal sum, or without thorough analysis, is speculation by definition… not investment.[/quote]
Every investment is speculative and to define “returns” only in money shows a lack of imagination.
The box that you are trying to build is arbitrary and limiting.
[quote]orion wrote:
tme wrote:
The biggest issue with this is that driving is a privilege and neither a right or even a necessity, so you can easily live without auto insurance by simply not owning a car.
A privilege granted by whom and where did they derive their authority from to grant that privilege?
[/quote]
Granted by the state that issues you a driver’s license, which also has the right to revoke that privilege if you drive recklessly, are caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and in most states driving without valid liability insurance.
So what is the potential penalty for being sick without insurance? Is breathing a privilege that can be revoked by the state? Can they simply deny treatment to uninsured sick people?
[quote]tme wrote:
So what is the potential penalty for being sick without insurance? Is breathing a privilege that can be revoked by the state? Can they simply deny treatment to uninsured sick people?
[/quote]
Bottom line, I think if the gubbamint got out of the healthcare business it would be WWAAAYYYY more affordable and everyone would be able to get the insurance they needed.
Yeah, cause it’s so affordable and universally available now.
Why don’t you get sick and lose your job, then come back and tell us about your experience obtaining private insurance and how wonderfully affordable it is?
[quote]tme wrote:
orion wrote:
tme wrote:
The biggest issue with this is that driving is a privilege and neither a right or even a necessity, so you can easily live without auto insurance by simply not owning a car.
A privilege granted by whom and where did they derive their authority from to grant that privilege?
Granted by the state that issues you a driver’s license, which also has the right to revoke that privilege if you drive recklessly, are caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and in most states driving without valid liability insurance.
[/quote]
That is interesting because where I come from they simply must give me a drivers license, whether they want to or not.
So, no privileges there.
[quote]tme wrote:
Yeah, cause it’s so affordable and universally available now.
Why don’t you get sick and lose your job, then come back and tell us about your experience obtaining private insurance and how wonderfully affordable it is?
[/quote]
Ok, and once again.
Things are not scarce because they are expensive, they are expensive because they are scarce-
Nationalizing health care will not make first class medical care abundant but even more scarce.
The whole system MIGHT get away with stealing from the rich for a few decades and develop a black market for medical services along the way before it collapses and then there will be even less qualified medical personal.
There has never been a place and time in history where you could multiply scarce resources at gunpoint.
First class medical care is a luxury good that will and must remain a privilege of the rich until it trickles down to the masses as it invariably will.
No demagoguery, no appeal to emotions and redistribution at gunpoint can and will ever change that, it may delay it for decades though while it disenfranchises people with their own money.
edited
[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
Interesting.
And here I thought that there are whole post graduate courses dealing with the allocation of risk in the insurance business alone.
Who knew that a simple dice might have done the same job?
It’s certainly a flawed analogy, but I like it anyway. In some sense it is true–you buy a lottery ticket with almost no chance of winning the large cash award. In a similar but opposite sense, you (if responsible and alert) buy car insurance with a low chance of ever using it. The chance is not nearly as low as that of winning the lottery, but it IS driven by fear–the fear of needing to pay out large sums in a wreck and not being able to. The lottery is driven by an irrational hope that you will be the lucky bastard that gets the money.
Not that the high level classes aren’t needed in insurance. Of course specific training is needed.
The very idea of calling an investment rational or not is a value judgment. If the opportunity to win big is worth a few dollars to someone who are you to say it is irrational?
You’re being liberal calling it an investment. It’s gambling. The odds of winning are so astronomical that I consider any hope to be irrational based on the almost certain outcome of you losing. You want to play it for fun, that’s fine. That’s why I gamble at the tables, or play poker. I would consider playing poker an investment based on a skilled player and the possible manipulation of probability before I would consider playing the lottery one.
“In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of value [after considered analysis] with an expectation of favorable future returns.”
Placing money into a vehicle that has a substantial risk of losing the principal sum, or without thorough analysis, is speculation by definition… not investment.
Every investment is speculative and to define “returns” only in money shows a lack of imagination.
The box that you are trying to build is arbitrary and limiting.
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re talking about here. If you invest financially, you expect returns in money, either through dividends or increased stock value. What else would you want, teddy bears?
Investment is speculative only to the degree that it is poorly researched or high risk. In finance “speculation” and “investment” are NOT synonymous terms. Generally with investment you expect a greater than even chance of improvement over the long term. That will never, ever be the case with a lottery. There is also no skill involved in playing the lottery, very unlike actual investment.
I’ve got no clue what you’re reaching for. Are you including definitions of investment that are not financial?
[quote]tme wrote:
Yeah, cause it’s so affordable and universally available now.
Why don’t you get sick and lose your job, then come back and tell us about your experience obtaining private insurance and how wonderfully affordable it is?
[/quote]
It’s really not that affordable, and if the goverenment got it’s greddy paws out of it, it would be more affordable. Thats the point I’m trying to make here.