Wrong. A moral hazard is when you are incentivized to increase risk *because* you won't bear costs from it. In this case, going about your life because you aren't the one likely to die of covid. Or when you get bullshitted into thinking you're safe and go back to work anyway.
-
-
Replying to @BetaDecayPlus @arthur_affect and
Or retroactively not bearing the burdens TODAY of actions taken previously knowing there was real downside risk. The perspective shifts as it relates to time but the implications of what is morally hazardous do not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Reroot_Flyover @arthur_affect and
I don't even know how to respond to that, what exactly are you trying to talk about? You do know that a moral hazard isn't meant to be a threat to morality, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @BetaDecayPlus @Reroot_Flyover and
Considering that nobody actually predicted COVID-19, specifically, would happen or based their "lifestyle choices" on it he's obviously not talking about COVID-19 specifically but the general principle that fat people are entitled to healthcare
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BetaDecayPlus and
"Moral hazard" is a term from the insurance industry and its most direct application to this situation is the justification for rejecting health insurance applications from fat people by labeling obesity a "pre-existing condition"
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BetaDecayPlus and
On the grounds that it's not fair to "force" thin people to pay for fat people's expensive health problems, and if fat people know they won't be able to get insurance if they're fat it'll motivate them to lose weight This is a very popular opinion among evil shitheads
1 reply 1 retweet 32 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Buffaloompa @BetaDecayPlus and
The part where it's bad for crunching the numbers because "healthy" people have to pay for "unhealthy" people is called adverse selection The part where they worry this may actually increase the level of fatness in the population is what's called moral hazard
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Buffaloompa and
To suggest the concept of moral hazard stay frozen in the realm of insurance actuaries is silly. It has a much broader application in public policy and you must know this. But keep wandering...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Reroot_Flyover @Buffaloompa and
No, I'm not saying it's only applicable to insurance, I'm just saying insurance is the most obvious example for its being deployed in evil ways
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes
Applied broadly it's a general term for the idea that we should let the world punish people for their misfortunes in order to hold them accountable for whatever part of those misfortunes was caused by "bad choices" In hopes this will reduce misfortune by reducing "bad choices"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Reroot_Flyover and
That doesn't happen, of course, the suffering just continues, but it lets rich people walk right past starving poor people with their wallets closed and feel self-righteous about it
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Reroot_Flyover and
And since we use being fat (Hi, me too!) so often : Last I read, the research suggests that fat cells are a one way trip, or in other words each time your weight goes up your body decides it is the new normal and tries to maintain there. Losing weight is fighting genetics
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.