> Forcing people to pay different amounts for insurance isn't much of 'insurance' at all, then, in my view.
I would argue that this is the core of insurance.
I propose the following example:
A thousand people have a 1% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$10. If company A offers insurance for $12, the company benefits by making $2 * 1000 and the individuals benefit by removing variance from their life.
Lets add in a single person who has a 10% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$100. In a free market, why would A offer insurance for any amount less than $100?
I am not saying that not everyone should have health insurance, but that perhaps insurance isn't the best system for healthcare.
> perhaps insurance isn't the best system for healthcare
Certainly insurance tied to your employer is stupid. Someone gets cancer, loses their job due to being temporarily disabled during treatment, loses their insurance with their job? What kind of useless "insurance" stops paying out the moment you get sick?
I would argue that this is the core of insurance.
I propose the following example: A thousand people have a 1% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$10. If company A offers insurance for $12, the company benefits by making $2 * 1000 and the individuals benefit by removing variance from their life. Lets add in a single person who has a 10% chance of owing $1000. Their EV is -$100. In a free market, why would A offer insurance for any amount less than $100?
I am not saying that not everyone should have health insurance, but that perhaps insurance isn't the best system for healthcare.