• sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Eh, no, surely not. Pool the risk and only pay for your share of the risk. Somebody takes some risk in that, because statistics don’t always pan out, even at large, so the risk taker gets a return. Literally couldn’t be further from a “scam” - it’s one of the few amazing upsides to using money instead of bartering.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ah right. Yeah US healthcare is utterly fucked. I’m very happy to live in a place with decent public healthcare, even if the local government is trying to screw it over.

    • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think a basic insurance pool makes sense, but big insurance companies are quite far removed from being basic insurance pools. The whole industry exists to get people to sign up for policies they don’t need, deny coverage to people to who need policies, and when someone actually makes a claim to find any and all possible ways to deny it.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In terms of denying coverage, that may be a U.S. healthcare thing. I’ve always found insurance companies reasonable to deal with, even when needs aren’t straightforward. For example, I’ve got a large family history of MS - getting illness cover was impossible via the standard route, but going through a broker many insurance companies were willing to insure me.

        It seems a strange business that didn’t want customers.