Insurance is the monetization of the misfortune of people. Updated

[5X]

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 01:20 PM - Edit history (2)

Basically, gambling on our health, economics, income, and just about any misfortune that can be encountered.

This thread got me to thinking about other dangers of IoT.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212822858

If insurance companies can get ahold of the data from our own homes (once they are connected to the internet)
they can charge variable rates based on daily living.

Think of the implications of that.


Edit: Ok, so its not monetization of misfortune, but risk, I get that, but, that is not the point.

The whole point I was trying to make is that the data from IoT will be used in real time to monetize that risk
based on daily living, your habits.

[rampartc]

1. insurance, banking, the syock market all depend on their customer's confudence

that those corporations are permanent and reliable. the problem is, that in America these corporations, in addition to limited liability, can merge, spin off, reorganize, and things we've never heard of to avoid paying off.

[randr]

2. Legalized mafia

Profit from misfortune is usury.
We need a define a new morality if we are to create a better future.
On edit:
This is the exact reason they hate the Social Security System. People taking care of each other cuts out the middle man.

[ck4829]

22. Yep

[jberryhill]

3. They don't monetize misfortune

They monetize risk and the perception of risk. They lose money on misfortune.

But these kinds of observations, like my favorite - “Doctors make money from illness or injury” - are kind of trite.

[randr]

4. I'm betting that they invest in the cures as well

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Insurance industries are highly invested in pharmaceuticals for instance.
Making money on the risk and results.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. How?

"Insurance industries are highly vested in pharmaceuticals for instance. "


How are they "highly vested"?

Just curious.

[randr]

12. A look at any corp portfolio will show

how divested they are.
Coal companies were highly invested in fracking for instance.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. OK...so, without looking it up.....

What percentage of their entire investment portfolio would you say a major firm like MetLife would have invested in Equities?


Just a guess

Would you say it's 5%? 10%? 20%? 50?

And of that percentage, how much would you think is held in Pharmaceutical companies?

And without trying to be too pedantic, you are misusing terms, which frankly gives me the impression that you are reaching past the point with which you are familiar.

A look at any corp portfolio will show how divested they are.
Coal companies were highly invested in fracking for instance.

Those two underlined words are NOT synonyms and are not interchangeable

[randr]

16. You caught my dyslexia at its best

While not familiar with the proper terms I think I am still right to assume corporations do not have our interests at heart. The market is rigged so that investors will gain whether stocks go up or down.
I recall that one reason for the economic fall at Reagans end was due to the massive investments insurance companies made with their newly freed regulations. The country was awash in vacant properties. The high cost of medical care is only to help insurance companies cover their losses, what they call coverage these days.

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. OK....Fair enough....

BUT....

You caught my dyslexia at its best

I have it also. There are words I constantly misspell, no matter how many times I read the autocorrect! You have my understanding

While not familiar with the proper terms I think I am still right to assume corporations do not have our interests at heart.

This is by definition, a "blanket statement", but I won't say it is entirely inaccurate. Their interests are in making money. But many, many tens of thousands of companies, both large and small, DO have their customers interest at the forefront. Having said that, there aren't too many companies that survive very long after their public reputation is trashed, be it by external or internal forces. Witness Sears and K-Mart, among literally hundreds of others through history.

The market is rigged so that investors will gain whether stocks go up or down.

The use of the word "rigged" in this sentence sort of obscures the truth a bit. You and I are both free to hold both long and short positions on any equity publicly traded, just like MetLife or any other large investor is. Of course, it isn't possible with very limited funds, but there is no law against say...holding 100 shares of Pfizer (used because it is a member of the "Dow 30", a pharmaceutical and has an affordable share price - $39.32 at Friday's close), holding a Put contract on them as well as a Covered Call option. Does the stock market in general favor those with money to invest? Of course.

I recall that one reason for the economic fall at Reagans end was due to the massive investments insurance companies made with their newly freed regulations. The country was awash in vacant properties.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here, and since it is irrelevant to the original question, I'll just give it a pass.

The high cost of medical care is only to help insurance companies cover their losses, what they call coverage these days.

The reasons for the high cost of medical care in the USA are numerous, but it certainly can't be all the Insurance Industry's fault. And please do not take this as a defense of Medical insurance. It has its place, but we need a single payer system just like every other advanced nation has. So I am not a shill for the insurance industry, not by a long shot.


And BTW, you didn't answer my question.

[randr]

19. They all wear three piece suits?

[5X]

9. see edit above

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. It didn't start out that way.

Insurance as we know it originated centuries ago when merchants figured out a way to minimize losses of cargo and ships as a result of shipwrecks or piracy by contributing money to an insurance pool. If your ship went down you could be compensated from the pool. That's basically the way insurance has worked for a very long time - when you buy insurance you're betting that you will have a loss that will need compensation; the insurance company is betting you won't (and therefore can keep and invest your premiums). It's actually very sensible. It wasn't until pretty recently that insurance changed from a simple pooling arrangement intended to minimize risk to the members to a big business intended to make a lot of money for the managers of the pool. In a better world insurance would revert to its original function and would be required to be a nonprofit operation.

[Codeine]

6. A most sophomoric analysis. nt

[5X]

23. Noam Chomsky agrees with me on where it is going...

“The kind of model toward which society is moving is already illustrated to a substantial extent in China, where they have very heavy surveillance systems and … what they call a social credit system,” Chomsky says. “You get a certain number of points, and if you, say, jaywalk, violate a traffic rule, you lose points. If you help an old lady across the street, you gain points. Pretty soon, all this gets internalized, and your life is dedicated to making sure you follow the rules that are established. This is going to expand enormously as we move to what’s called the internet of things, meaning every device around you—your refrigerator, your toothbrush and so on—is picking up information about what you’re doing, predicting what you’re going to do next, trying to control what you’re going to do next, advise what you do next.”
Perhaps most alarmingly, Chomsky asserts that “Huxley was kind of right” in positing that “people may not see [this form of surveillance] as intrusive; they just see it as that’s the way life is, the way the sun rises in the morning.”

[sarisataka]

7. It is not the monetization of misfortune

But the sharing of risk.

As pointed out above, if you have a misfortune, they lose money. The insurance company wants you to live a healthy, boring life.

Now they do want to gather information to see what sort of risk you are. You may tell them you only drive back and forth to work and your hobby is photographing birds. Very low risk so they would charge you low rates as "misfortune"is unlikely.

What they find through data gathering is your job is using your personal vehicle for delivery all over a major city and you have been ticketed for speed and reckless driving seven times in the last year. Also you photograph the birds in flight while using a wing suit to soar with them. You did not tell them a lie but you are a very high risk and therefore will be charged a higher rate.

Your solution is simple. Very little insurance is required by law. You have the choice to retain risk and not purchase insurance. They will not be gambling with you on any potential misfortune. The downside is if you experience misfortune there is no one there to pay for your loss.

[5X]

10. see edit above

[whistler162]

11. Let's get rid of insurance

like Medicare. Medicaid, Social Security, Life Insurance, Home Insurance, Car insurance, and other types of insurance. Let the people pay full market value.<YES Snide Remark>

[ck4829]

21. Already paying full market value

It's so great paying money for something then for them to slink away when I need the service.

[Hortensis]

13. Insurance exists because people NEED it.

People need insurance so much they'll buy policies and write monthly checks for several decades, all the while hoping they never get a penny back.

Insurance is very often liberating, allowing people, especially those with dependents, to make life choices they wouldn't feel they could without it. Such as starting a business, buying a home, taking up scuba diving, heck driving to and from work every day for decades.

And, of course, the very first people to need insurance were businessmen/employers, traders on land and sea. Without insurance there could be no large middle class, which depends entirely on the stable prosperity insurance is a huge part of creating.

As for healthcare, insurance is already obsolete and on its way out. Of course. Nothing to do with political "revolution," everything to do with other forces.

Insurance exists to protect from unforeseen catastrophes that people can't reasonably save up for. That worked when physicians couldn't do much for heart attacks beyond prescribing nitroglycerin and advising moving the bed downstairs, and hospital bills seldom ran up for very long.

Whereas due to great advances in medical science, modern healthcare is now cradle-to-grave maintenance of health. Size of risks and whether they are foreseen or unforeseen are completely irrelevant. And health "insurance" companies are increasingly becoming risk-free clerical/bill-paying operations as this evolves. And of course government involvement is now absolutely necessary in order to organize means to meet the greatly increased need.

Ironically, Sanders and his followers seriously retarded the death of most health insurance by helping Republicans win power trifectas both nationally and in various states in 2016. And, yes, I think we should assume there IS a real connection between that and Republican use of Sanders to defeat Democrats. They didn't do it for nothing.

[MineralMan]

14. Insurance is Gambling

Pure and simple.

We buy life insurance because we're betting we'll did before we've paid into it what we get from it.

Same thing with homeowner's insurance. We're betting that something bad will happen and that the insurance company will pay if it does.

Insurance is a bet against yourself, essentially, and a recognition that bad stuff happens.

[mathematic]

17. Inusrance is the opposite of gambling

Gambling increases your risk, insurance decreases it.

When you pay a premium for homeowner's insurance you turn a possibility of a large loss into a certainty of a small cost.

When you go to a casino, it's the other way around. You go in with a known amount of money and you leave with a variable amount of money.

It's not a gamble because you are no longer affected by future events with respect to the insured asset (broadly speaking, obviously insurance policies are sold with deductibles, etc).

[ck4829]

20. It really is though