What Do Socialism and Capitalism Mean to You

[lostone]

jut off of a casual google, I pulled up this:

17% of adults with health care debt declared bankruptcy or lost their home because of it. 66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy. As of April 2022, 14% of Americans with medical debt planned to declare bankruptcy later in the year because of it.Aug 30, 2022

This garbage "research" needs to be nuked from orbit.

It doesn't say what you think it says, it was done in a very deceptive way to make reporters think it said this.

Rather, what it really said was that most bankruptcies include medical debt, not that they were caused by medical debt.

The real number is more like 5%--and even there half of those are retirees overspending their assets, the bankruptcy was inevitable and the medical stuff was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Medical expenses are nonetheless still a strong factor in many bankrupcties, even if they are used as a political football

Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Noted also is that Bernie Sanders exaggerated claim of 530,000 such per year was rejected as false by the Washington Post

Health Care Costs Number One Cause of Bankruptcy for American Families | ABI

www.abi.org

You're the actuary, so I presume that your expertise means that you are largely correct

 

[Emily Lake]

Medical expenses are nonetheless still a strong factor in many bankrupcties, even if they are used as a political football

Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Noted also is that Bernie Sanders exaggerated claim of 530,000 such per year was rejected as false by the Washington Post

Health Care Costs Number One Cause of Bankruptcy for American Families | ABI

www.abi.org

You're the actuary, so I presume that your expertise means that you are largely correct

I think you may have mixed some people up in your response. Loren is not an actuary. I am, as is Alcoholic Actuary (which I think might be obvious from his user name )

 

[Loren Pechtel]

jut off of a casual google, I pulled up this:

17% of adults with health care debt declared bankruptcy or lost their home because of it. 66.5% of bankruptcies are caused directly by medical expenses, making it the leading cause for bankruptcy. As of April 2022, 14% of Americans with medical debt planned to declare bankruptcy later in the year because of it.Aug 30, 2022

This garbage "research" needs to be nuked from orbit.

It doesn't say what you think it says, it was done in a very deceptive way to make reporters think it said this.

Rather, what it really said was that most bankruptcies include medical debt, not that they were caused by medical debt.

The real number is more like 5%--and even there half of those are retirees overspending their assets, the bankruptcy was inevitable and the medical stuff was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Medical expenses are nonetheless still a strong factor in many bankrupcties, even if they are used as a political football

Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Noted also is that Bernie Sanders exaggerated claim of 530,000 such per year was rejected as false by the Washington Post

Health Care Costs Number One Cause of Bankruptcy for American Families | ABI

www.abi.org

You're the actuary, so I presume that your expertise means that you are largely correct

I'm not the actuary, I was saying that Emily Lake is.

And eternally repeating the false claim doesn't make it true.

 

[Bomb#20]

Let's pick that apart. You're implying the same underlying cause -- that flood insurance is intrinsically unprofitable -- explains both. That's a beautiful theory. Beautiful theory, meet ugly fact. Flood insurance can be profitable. You ridiculing me for not accepting an argument from authority doesn't magically cause Chubb and the other companies to stop selling the non-NFIP flood insurance they sell.

Now then, let's turn to the explanation in your link.

"During the 1920s, the insurance industry concluded that flood​

insurance could not be a profitable venture because the only people who would​

want flood coverage would be those who lived in floodplains.​

Since they were sure to be flooded, the rates would be too high to attract customers."​

Likewise, the only people who would want death coverage would be those who are mortal. Since they are sure to die, the rates would be too high to attract customers. Therefore the insurance industry concluded that life insurance could not be a profitable venture. Oh, wait. I don't think I'm any kind of insurance industry guru and even I can figure out life insurance is a thing.

Again, I will point to 1) your ignorance of this topic and 2) the fact that you are welcome to take the exams necessary to be either a casualty actuary or a life actuary if you actually desire to alleviate your ignorance.

Emily, why are you trying to pull rank on me? In the first place, this is an infidels' forum; argument from authority does not become us. And in the second place, what did I say that you think is wrong that you think your training and exams made you an authority on? It's not like I claimed my earthquake insurance is overpriced. We are arguing about whether insurance is capitalism; being an actuary gives you no special expertise as to what the criteria for capitalism are. We are arguing about whether flood is in fact uninsurable; being a casualty actuary presumably means that's something AA has expertise on, but so do the actuaries at Chubb et al. whose judgment I am relying on. That those companies offer private non-NFIP flood insurance is not a figment of my ignorant imagination. And we are arguing about whether the explanations presented by AA were correct explanations; being an actuary gives you no special expertise as to whether an explanation is logical. If anyone should get to pull rank here it's me. Logic is my speciality -- telling the difference between a logical and an illogical explanation is what mathematics is all about.

Life insurance does not use the same approach, and your argument here is entirely wrong. When it comes to life insurance, death is an inevitability - but WHEN is uncertain.

When it comes to flood insurance, flooding is an inevitability - but WHEN is uncertain. Your explanation is illogical.

 

[laughing dog]

Capitalism typically refers to an economic system not to a product or a service. An economic system characterized as predominantly privately owned is capitalism regardless of the types or characteristics of the products and services produced. It makes little sense to say insurance or apples are capitalistic in my view.

It is a fact that a very segment of private insurance industry determined that flood insurance was not profitable. Whether that decision was correct or not is irrelevant. Facts are neither logical or illogical.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's pick that apart. You're implying the same underlying cause -- that flood insurance is intrinsically unprofitable -- explains both. That's a beautiful theory. Beautiful theory, meet ugly fact. Flood insurance can be profitable. You ridiculing me for not accepting an argument from authority doesn't magically cause Chubb and the other companies to stop selling the non-NFIP flood insurance they sell.

Now then, let's turn to the explanation in your link.

"During the 1920s, the insurance industry concluded that flood​

insurance could not be a profitable venture because the only people who would​

want flood coverage would be those who lived in floodplains.​

Since they were sure to be flooded, the rates would be too high to attract customers."​

Likewise, the only people who would want death coverage would be those who are mortal. Since they are sure to die, the rates would be too high to attract customers. Therefore the insurance industry concluded that life insurance could not be a profitable venture. Oh, wait. I don't think I'm any kind of insurance industry guru and even I can figure out life insurance is a thing.

Again, I will point to 1) your ignorance of this topic and 2) the fact that you are welcome to take the exams necessary to be either a casualty actuary or a life actuary if you actually desire to alleviate your ignorance.

Emily, why are you trying to pull rank on me? In the first place, this is an infidels' forum; argument from authority does not become us. And in the second place, what did I say that you think is wrong that you think your training and exams made you an authority on? It's not like I claimed my earthquake insurance is overpriced. We are arguing about whether insurance is capitalism; being an actuary gives you no special expertise as to what the criteria for capitalism are. We are arguing about whether flood is in fact uninsurable; being a casualty actuary presumably means that's something AA has expertise on, but so do the actuaries at Chubb et al. whose judgment I am relying on. That those companies offer private non-NFIP flood insurance is not a figment of my ignorant imagination. And we are arguing about whether the explanations presented by AA were correct explanations; being an actuary gives you no special expertise as to whether an explanation is logical. If anyone should get to pull rank here it's me. Logic is my speciality -- telling the difference between a logical and an illogical explanation is what mathematics is all about.

I do have a masters in applied mathematics in addition to being an accredited actuarial fellow.

Either way, it's not about pulling rank - it's about the fact that this is a bit more complicated than you probably realize, and that a layperson's armchair interpretation isn't exactly a solid argument. No matter how smart and skilled you are (and I always enjoy reading your arguments even when I disagree), it's probably not a great idea for a layperson to take on a quantum physicist and tell the physicist that they're wrong about their own field's jargon based on what they read in Scientific American.

Life insurance does not use the same approach, and your argument here is entirely wrong. When it comes to life insurance, death is an inevitability - but WHEN is uncertain.

When it comes to flood insurance, flooding is an inevitability - but WHEN is uncertain. Your explanation is illogical.

Flooding is not an inevitability. It might be an inevitability if you live in a flood plain... but certainly not for someone living on a high plateau in Nevada.

Have you looked into Chubb's offerings? Do they offer them everywhere? Are there areas where they are not available? Are there limitations on the type of flood covered - does it cover rising groundwater, broken plumbing, oceanic swell, flash flood, or are some of those excluded?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is a difference between argument from authority and argument from qualified expertise. Quoting ever so many creationist pseudo-scientists as authorities does make one right about evolution being false, for example.

 

[Bomb#20]

Capitalism: PVP economics.
Socialism: PVE economics.

The question is whether or not you wish to view other people as "players" or "environment".

PVP: Player vs Player
PVE: Player vs Environment.

My thought is that the environment is evil enough without the players adding more to that.

Alice: I invented widgets.
Bob: I want to buy a widget.
Cindy: I want to manufacture widgets.
Dave: I want to invest my savings in Cindy's widget factory.
Edna: Investment in manufacturing isn't up to Dave; it's up to the central planners.
Frank: There are no resources allocated to widgets in the central plan.
Gwen: Let's add widgets to the central plan.
Harry: That would mean reducing resources for other things. I vote against widgets.
Frank: I agree with Harry. Sorry Gwen, you're outvoted.
Edna: Sorry Cindy. The central planners turned you down. You can't build a widget factory.
Cindy: Sorry Bob. I can't sell you a widget.​

On what planet is socialism not PVP economics?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

...
In any event, this is all a counterfactual hypothetical. As Judge Judy would say, it doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense it isn't true. Flood isn't uninsurable. Private non-FEMA flood insurance is available; it accounts for about 15% of the flood insurance market.

Private Flood Insurance Companies - NerdWallet

Private flood insurance companies offer an alternative to policies from the National Flood Insurance Program. See whether it’s right for you.

www.nerdwallet.com

FEMA appears to dominate the market largely because it's subsidized by the taxpayers. It isn't supposed to be, but NFIP is billions in debt to the Treasury.

History of Flood Insurance

You are wondering how an 'industry as a collective' won't insure something while simultaneously purporting that the solitary government entity that does is billions in debt? Could it be because you aren't the insurance industry guru that you think you are Mr Dunning-Kruger?

Let's pick that apart. You're implying the same underlying cause -- that flood insurance is intrinsically unprofitable -- explains both. That's a beautiful theory. Beautiful theory, meet ugly fact. Flood insurance can be profitable. You ridiculing me for not accepting an argument from authority doesn't magically cause Chubb and the other companies to stop selling the non-NFIP flood insurance they sell.

Now then, let's turn to the explanation in your link.

"During the 1920s, the insurance industry concluded that flood​

insurance could not be a profitable venture because the only people who would​

want flood coverage would be those who lived in floodplains.​

Since they were sure to be flooded, the rates would be too high to attract customers."​

Likewise, the only people who would want death coverage would be those who are mortal. Since they are sure to die, the rates would be too high to attract customers. Therefore the insurance industry concluded that life insurance could not be a profitable venture. Oh, wait. I don't think I'm any kind of insurance industry guru and even I can figure out life insurance is a thing.

Those are completely different types of insurance. Life insurance is predicting the timing of the event so the insurer can earn enough interest to cover the benefit. Property insurance has typically a 1 year time limit and event frequency is the number one contributor to catastrophic property coverage (severity being the second). This is why all floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. are referred to by their return periods (1 in 100 year, 1 in 10 year, etc.)

And yes, surprisingly, data analytics have gotten much better in the last 100 years. Insurers now have more refined flood maps than the FEMA flood plain maps developed in 1960. They can offer endorsements and gap coverages at better rates than NFIP. But I also know that they are not offering anything anywhere near what the NFIP charges for zones V or A. And I also know that the Property insurance market in general is a goddamn disaster right now. Why do you think no one in Malibu can get a Homeowners policy? Because they can't afford it? Obviously not. It's because no one is really offering insurance where wildfires hit right now.

And please believe we are not engaged in an 'argument' right now. I'm telling you what I know from firsthand experience. The thing that chapped your ass to begin with was that I said insurance isn't very capitalist. It is quite literally sharing and paying for risk across a community. The state approves what you are allowed to charge, so if you can't get rate for flood, you don't cover it (and the government ends up with a new 'program'). IF you are trying to argue the semantics of the word "uninsurable", I couldn't give less than the 0 fucks I alreardy do. Just because someone offers a cover doesn't make a risk worth devoting time and capital toward pursuing.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Stop being deliberately obtuse. Reciting the claim does not qualify as an explanation. Why is the probability of loss too high, when other insured losses are more probable? Why are the claims costs too high on a particular risk when much more expensive things are routinely insured?

Allow me to direct you to the Casualty Actuarial Society of the US. They have a host of exams that cover this material. It will answer all of your questions, and introduce you to a fairly lucrative career field!

I.e., you don't know the answer any more than laughing dog does.

Dude, just no. I've been a practicing actuary for 25 years. My practice area is health, as opposed to casualty - which this question is actually relevant to. IIRC, Alcoholic Actuary's practice is casualty.

I'm ACAS and MAAA still but I don't sign opinions anymore. I'm actually the Chief Underwriting Officer for a P&C company (I still handle 95% of the actuarial work).

aa

 

[Jarhyn]

Capitalism: PVP economics.
Socialism: PVE economics.

The question is whether or not you wish to view other people as "players" or "environment".

PVP: Player vs Player
PVE: Player vs Environment.

My thought is that the environment is evil enough without the players adding more to that.

Alice: I invented widgets.​

Bob: I want to buy a widget.​

Cindy: I want to manufacture widgets.​

Dave: I want to invest my savings in Cindy's widget factory.​

Edna: Investment in manufacturing isn't up to Dave; it's up to the central planners.​

Frank: There are no resources allocated to widgets in the central plan.​

Gwen: Let's add widgets to the central plan.​

Harry: That would mean reducing resources for other things. I vote against widgets.​

Frank: I agree with Harry. Sorry Gwen, you're outvoted.​

Edna: Sorry Cindy. The central planners turned you down. You can't build a widget factory.​

Cindy: Sorry Bob. I can't sell you a widget.​

On what planet is socialism not PVP economics?

So, not being able to PVP is being PVP in your books because you want to PVP, the other player wants to PVE, and that makes you a P vs the other P. Got it.

It all reduces right back to "WAHH, Why can't I place myself against the other players!!!111"

The minute you are talking "my savings" and "invest" you are already in PVP land, and capitalism.

Your example of Socialism as PVP assumes capitalist PVPing right at the start of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Flooding is not an inevitability. It might be an inevitability if you live in a flood plain... but certainly not for someone living on a high plateau in Nevada.

I think you underestimate the desert.

While we do not live on a high plateau I would not rule out flooding in any general location in the desert--we will never be flooded out by rising water but we were required to have flood insurance on this house the first year. It was actually out of date information, it got re-evaluated and no was no longer required (and from when we moved in I could see there was no meaningful threat.) Did you perhaps see some of the flood damage to Death Valley last fall? What happens is you have heavy rain, the soil can't absorb much at all, it goes racing downhill. Because there is a downhill if the engineers do their job well the water is directed away from the houses and goes racing downhill--while the roads flood the houses don't. In it's natural state the area (I don't know about each particular lot) was like the rest of the desert--subject to occasional flash floods. It's still woe to those who don't have a good downhill where they live. (There is a casino parking garage in this boat--floods occasionally because it's on the valley floor.)

So long as there is higher terrain about it is not unusual to see appreciable damage from flowing water even in the mountains.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm ACAS and MAAA still but I don't sign opinions anymore. I'm actually the Chief Underwriting Officer for a P&C company (I still handle 95% of the actuarial work).

aa

I'm FSA and MAAA. I'm not currently working in the actuarial department of my company. I'm an actuary working directly for the GM of the Individual segment, in charge of product design, pricing strategy, and market positioning. For an actuary... I do a LOT of work with sales & marketing. I don't sign opinions, but I do sign certain supporting documents.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm ACAS and MAAA still but I don't sign opinions anymore. I'm actually the Chief Underwriting Officer for a P&C company (I still handle 95% of the actuarial work).

aa

I'm FSA and MAAA. I'm not currently working in the actuarial department of my company. I'm an actuary working directly for the GM of the Individual segment, in charge of product design, pricing strategy, and market positioning. For an actuary... I do a LOT of work with sales & marketing. I don't sign opinions, but I do sign certain supporting documents.

[/pound]

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Flooding is not an inevitability. It might be an inevitability if you live in a flood plain... but certainly not for someone living on a high plateau in Nevada.

I think you underestimate the desert.

While we do not live on a high plateau I would not rule out flooding in any general location in the desert--we will never be flooded out by rising water but we were required to have flood insurance on this house the first year. It was actually out of date information, it got re-evaluated and no was no longer required (and from when we moved in I could see there was no meaningful threat.) Did you perhaps see some of the flood damage to Death Valley last fall? What happens is you have heavy rain, the soil can't absorb much at all, it goes racing downhill. Because there is a downhill if the engineers do their job well the water is directed away from the houses and goes racing downhill--while the roads flood the houses don't. In it's natural state the area (I don't know about each particular lot) was like the rest of the desert--subject to occasional flash floods. It's still woe to those who don't have a good downhill where they live. (There is a casino parking garage in this boat--floods occasionally because it's on the valley floor.)

So long as there is higher terrain about it is not unusual to see appreciable damage from flowing water even in the mountains.

It isn’t underestimation, it is more like ‘I can get you affordable flood insurance that is also profitable to insurers’ vs. Appalachian plains and Kentucky lowlands type insurance policies. Now currently there is a huge flood risk in most of the western highlands (CO, UT, NV, NM and AZ) due to the snowpack. Soooo, that’s your upcoming renewal. They haven’t pulled yet, but as I’ve said all thru the thread - if this weather keeps up, you will only get (non-wild) fire insurance policies.

aa

 

[Bomb#20]

And yet, nobody says the possibility of their sister dying and leaving them with three unexpected kids is a good reason for cars to be issued to people by the government based on what car experts decide they need. In most areas of life people are expected to decide how much risk they can stand to bear, make their own decisions of how much to pay to mitigate it, and eat the costs themselves if it turns out they didn't take enough precautions.

And yet, almost everyone accepts that it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum skill level and to issue licenses (without which citizens may not drive unsupervised), that depend on demonstrating that they meet that minimum skill level, both prior to being issued a license, and on an ongoing basis whereby repeated and/or severe misbehaviour may result in the withdrawal of the license.

I don't care if you can afford to compensate me if you kill my sister; I still don't want you behind the wheel if that's a foreseeable consequence of your ineptitude as a driver. <wall of text snipped> ... and to have a good traffic violations history. If you've ever been fined for DUI, or if you've been fined for speeding or red light violations more than once in the previous five years, you can forget about getting one. They're a lot easier to lose for violations than a driver's licence, too.

TL;DR: Oh yes they do. Just in a fairly limited way.

That's not a reasonable TL;DR for the WOT leading up to it. You are conflating restrictions on the risks people are allowed to externalize onto others with restrictions on their decisions about what risks to assume themselves.

 

[Bomb#20]

... The rational way to deal with the "nobody or a whole bunch" problem is for each of a hundred different insurance companies to each insure a hundred homes in some valley where they're apt to flood all at once. Then when ten thousand people lose their homes all at once, a hundred companies face perfectly manageable fifty million dollar losses. ...

... Or we could offer government based flood insurance taxes and let the overage be handled by the fact that the government has infinite capacity to absorb momentary losses and a guarantee of future.

Or a government guarantor on the act of running the actuarial.

Or any number of situations where deficit operation as an insurer is available.

We could do it that way instead, yes. But then the decisions on rates would be made based on political considerations rather than best estimates of risk. Have you watched the John Oliver segment I linked upthread? The government appears to have designed NFIP around its political goal: to persuade people not to build in flood plains by pressuring their neighbors to subsidize them when they do.

The requirement of profitability leads to a specific outcome: maximization of premiums on a minimization of payouts..

That's a make-believe story left-wingers recite endlessly without checking its logic or comparing it to observation. The requirement of profitability leads to maximization of price on minimization of service delivery only in a monopoly situation, not when there are a hundred companies competing. Customers won't choose the company that maximizes price and minimizes service when they have options. Leftists are always, always threatening us with the boogeyman of capitalist monopoly outcomes whenever they're trying to talk us into giving up some competitive market and handing the service over to, wait for it, a government monopoly.

 

[Bomb#20]

Reciting the claim does not qualify as an explanation. Why is the probability of loss too high, when other insured losses are more probable? Why are the claims costs too high on a particular risk when much more expensive things are routinely insured?

If you thought about it - you answered your own question. It has to to probabilities and pooling risks. I am not going to explain how insurance works to you.

I.e., you don't know the answer.

And while we're at it, what in the name of god does "a capitalist industry decided" mean? How does an "industry as a collective" determine anything? ...

Are you really that effing obtuse? The phrase "capitalist industry decided" is short hand for capitalist firms on an individual level decided that it was unprofitable for each of them to insure against floods.

Oh, is that what you meant? Well then, either that's also what AA meant, or else it isn't. If that's also what AA meant, well, "the insurance industry as a collective determined..." is a seriously misleading way to say "the insurance companies determined on an individual level" -- his words were improperly implying collusion. Contrariwise, if that isn't also what AA meant, then your attempt to clarify AA's explanation misrepresented it.

In any event, this is all a counterfactual hypothetical. As Judge Judy would say, it doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense it isn't true.

LOL - if you don't understand something, then it isn't true is laughable.

LOL - if you don't have a counterargument to what somebody actually said, put words in her mouth. "Doesn't make sense" is not a phrase that means "I don't understand". Whether an explanation makes sense is an objective chracteristic of the explanation, not a subjective characteristic of some listener's mind. JJ also says "They don't keep me here because I'm beautiful. They keep me here because I'm smart."

 

[laughing dog]

Reciting the claim does not qualify as an explanation. Why is the probability of loss too high, when other insured losses are more probable? Why are the claims costs too high on a particular risk when much more expensive things are routinely insured?

If you thought about it - you answered your own question. It has to to probabilities and pooling risks. I am not going to explain how insurance works to you.

I.e., you don't know the answer.

I've explained this before in post # 147 . You can repeat your "truthiness" all you want, but it does not make it true.

Are you really that effing obtuse? The phrase "capitalist industry decided" is short hand for capitalist firms on an individual level decided that it was unprofitable for each of them to insure against floods.

Oh, is that what you meant? …....

A simple yes to my question would have sufficed.

LOL - if you don't have a counterargument to what somebody actually said, put words in her mouth. "Doesn't make sense" is not a phrase that means "I don't understand". Whether an explanation makes sense is an objective chracteristic of the explanation, not a subjective characteristic of some listener's mind. JJ also says "They don't keep me here because I'm beautiful. They keep me here because I'm smart."

I am sure the irony of your response was lost on you.

BTW - “ Doesn’t make sense” certainly can mean “I don’t understand”. Given the obtuseness in your responses, it was a natural conclusion to draw even if it was incorrect.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are some possible explanations over my (or others) declination to engage in pedagogical discussion over flood insurance with you:
1) I (or we) don't know the answer,
2) I (or we) don't think you are willing to engage in a honest discussion,
3) I (or we) don't think you are capable of grasping the necessary concepts,
4) other possibilities I cannot think of at this moment.

Notice 2 and 3 are based solely on my (or our) expectations based on experience, personality and biases -...

No, 2 and 3 may well be based on your personality and biases, but those expectations are not based on anything whatsoever in your experience. For you to claim they are is a false damaging claim made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Stop behaving that way.