Hacker News Reader

Comment by cortesoft | Hacker News Reader

I really hate this sort of argument... that people who use the newer, more convenient, technology are just lazy and should keep using the old way of doing things.

Why stop at delivery apps? Why are lazy people driving cars instead of just riding horses? Why are you ordering things online instead of just going to the store? Why are you farming using that tractor instead of a horse drawn plow?

Small conveniences add up. I don't want to live in a world where we aren't allowed to make things slightly easier.

View on HN

Because sometimes the net result of individual optimization (predatory food delivery apps) is social deoptimization (local restaurants close).

And for the same reason that we don't allow health insurance to charge people different rates on the basis of their genetic profiles, the exercise of government prerogative to optimize for the greater good, on behalf of all, is apt here.

Whether or not this particular approach is the best way to produce that good is a valid debate.

We don't even let health insurance to charge people different rates based on pre-existing conditions anymore, which is what drove health insurance premiums through the roof.

Healthcare premiums were steadily marching higher from the 1970s onwards, and continued to do so post-ACA at about the same annual growth rate.

Almost in perfect correlation as one by one pre-existing condition limits were legislatively banned over the years. And ACA eliminated almost all remaining pre-existing conditions, so of course it drove insurance costs and pricing sky high.

Except it didn't.

See Exhibit 1 at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2018..... The "sky high" jump you portray doesn't exist. It's been a quite steady annual rise.

If pre-existing conditions were the primary cause for premium increases, the ACA's one-fell-swoop removal of them would've had far more significant impact on that chart.

Limits on pre-existing conditions mainly affect individual policy pricing, corporate health insurance are already pooled and because of that always had fewer pre-existing condition limits.

The whole reason for health insurance in the first place is for healthy, wealthy, or young people to pay for unhealthy, poor, or old people.

That’s the whole reason for any kind of insurance. It’s a mechanism for lucky people to pay the costs of unlucky people. And even lucky people pay for it it because you never know how your luck will change.

If you take your idea for a pricing model to the extreme, everybody pays pretty much what they need to cover their own costs, which could be extremely low or extremely high. This is no different than if nobody had insurance at all.

No, that’s the reason for government to provide necessary medical care to those who can’t afford it.

Insurance is pooling of risks so participants in the pool are insured against medical costs they can’t afford.

The difference is statistically, most people are going to get old. Lucky is if you either don’t need insurance when you’re young or you live to be old.

That's fine, just pay a fair price for the service.

I always tip well, and I am not going to pay Grubhub more than they charge... that isn't going to help the situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com