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.
-
-
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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Buffaloompa @Reroot_Flyover and
Well, no, the term "moral" is there for a reason In the history of the insurance industry it was used specifically to distinguish "moral hazard" from "adverse selection" -- moral hazard isn't just bad for your company's profits but bad for all of society
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It's about the idea that an insurance company has a moral responsibility not to issue insurance policies that cause the level of risky behavior to go up Originally applied to people burning down buildings to commit insurance fraud
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Buffaloompa and
I remember it being applied to bailing out banks back in 2008 as well, since it shielded them from bankruptcy and passed the cost directly back to the people the bank was preying on.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.