"Attorney general seeks death penalty for Luigi Mangione."
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (70)
sorted by:
It's easy to calculate.
Take the total paid into the company from insurance premiums, then subtract the amount paid out for claims. Divide that amount by the Value of Statistical Life, and you get the equivalent number of people killed by the insurance company.
Since the company has profits of $14.4 billion, then they have killed more than 1920 people equivalent. And that of course is a very conservative underestimate, since profits don't include non claims overhead such as wages and rent.
I don't get the calculation. If I'm generally healthy and will not need much in terms of health coverage but I do have a good insurance payed by my employer - would the extra money I put in go towards the number of people killed?
What is the ideal insurance company from the perspective of the customer? What is the ideal insurance company from the perspective of the stockholder?
What is the purpose of an insurance company from the perspective of the customer? What is the purpose of an insurance company from the perspective of a stockholder?
Also, how do you calculate the expected value of a bet?
It depends, are we calculating for a business that actually has an incentive to exist, or a magical altruism portal that runs on fairy dust?
The former. Money doesn't come from nothing, but all overhead is taking from the money that should be going back to the customer. The ideal insurance company from the perspective of the customer is one which has zero employees, zero rent, and zero stockholders. All premiums go right back to the customers.
From the perspective of the Stockholders the opposite is true. They want absolutely nothing to go back to the customers. In their ideal world everyone would be required to buy insurance and they never have to pay out.
Thus the CEO's job is to maximize taking money from the customers that would otherwise be spent on keeping said customers alive, thus killing them in part.
I was just asking about the formula. I understand the idea of being in the best interest of the company to not pay insurance but the formula would need to be how many claims for life saving are being denied that caused the person to die do to either poor care or debt.
The point would be that the insurance needs to be useful, bad insurance policies can tank a company. So ideal would be one that offers good / great service while also being expensive enough as to bring in profits.
You didn't answer his question
Solvency is a prerequisite. I know the ACA tried to create Healthcare via insurance companies, but its an idiotic approach even if you're an advocate for "free" healthcare (especially if, really).
Of course it is, and you are retarded for implying otherwise. An insurance company that doesn't exist after you pay into it is the same as an insurance company that doesn't pay out.
As for not answering his question, I already gave it more respect than it deserves by giving him some questions to think about to get to the answer. He wasn't asking in good faith because he is one of those "Won't you think of the poor CEO's" type.
That's retarded.