• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    No insurance is risk distribution. We all pay 5$ so none of us needs to pay 5,000,000$ which is not economically sustainable. What insurance companies get is administrative overhead fee. This has nothing to do with gambling.

    • tachikoma@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Nah nah nah; Insurance is like preem gammbling.

      For example insurance companies couldn’t pay everyone back after Hurrican Katrina. First come first serve I guess. :P

      To my understanding insurance companies isolate areas so if that area gets hit hard. The insurance company just files bankruptcy in the area and moves on..

      You gamble with which bookie (insurance company) you choose. You gamble when you choose where to live. You gamble how fast you can make your insurance claim. This shit is gambling through and through. And we (“The Common Person”) are getting fleeced.

        • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If you pay, you lose money and might not be able to stay in business. If you don’t pay, they might rob you and burn down your store. Yes, life is a gamble.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Just because there is a statistical aspect to it doesn’t make it gambling. By your definition literally everything is gambling which is a very small brained take.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The price of an insurance product is divided in 4 parts, the risk, the actuarial adjustment, administrative and distribution costs, and return of capital.

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          No, the risk is the probability of a claim times the value of a claim. If you just charge that is mathematically proven that the insurance pool is going to fail. The actuarial adjustment is there to create a surplus that guarantee the survival of the pool.

            • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The return of capital is what the owners of the capital expect to get to have their money invested on the insurance company instead of moving their money to other investment opportunities.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                But the capital provided by the owners is what is used to backstop the insurance and ensure the pot always exists. The amount of capital needed is calculated by the actuaries but supplied by the owners.

                This is why I’m confused why you listed both an interest on capital and an actuarial adjustment.

                • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Each product needs to sustain itself (risk+actuarial adjustment), pay for itself (admin and distribution costs) and give a return to the owners. You can’t use the actuarial adjustment as return of capital or the company is going to fail eventually.

                  The owners of the capital want the pool to sustain itself and a return of capital forever. You cant use the same money for both.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      From the buyers point of view it reduces risk, so it is not gambling for them.

      However it is gambling from the point of view of the underwriters.

      (I am assuming both sides play fair and pay out when they should)