Politics
Out of context: Reply #16237
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ********0
@ukit
Your clip got me thinking about Insurance and gambling. Similiar mechanisms. But not directly similiar. Gambling is risk for reward. Insurance is risk for breaking even, knowing some day chances are high theyll need it but never know when. Both are businesses crunching numbers hedging bets.
Casinos need losses to continue paying out the rare few who win big. Insurances need either larger premiums or more people to pool to cover costs.
Both without participation of people, in gambling people wiling to lose, and insurance healthy people willing to pay for fear of low probabability of risk, neither would exist.
What would happen if people were mandated to gamble in casinos and on insurance. Of course we would need to tweak gaming to say only games of odds liek slots. And slot odds can be controlled. But take out games of skill so its more balanced. Like insurance that yearly payment would cover almost all costs. And for the casino mandate it would cover X amount of hours of free slot pay.
100% percent base for both no age limits, life to death. Purely hypothetical but would be interesting to see what happens. Gaming would probably tighten the slots, insurance would offer less care. Larger base larger reserves. What would be the outcome for the business. Tighter controls calls for larger premiums. Service in a casino would probably go down, same as healthcare. More peopel of course will gamble because its free and if they dont use it they lose it, healthcare peopel will use more of for menial things.
Theres a ton of different hypotheticals and little variables u can tweak and try to see what would happen knowing peoples human nature thats driven by incentives. But something ive been thinking about. And i think its a good mental exercise to try to create a scenario where both function the same but instead of death its winning. That way you can try to look at the long term outcomes and problems without being blinded/persuaded to choose irrational outcomes by negative things like death. Seems like the idea of analyzing the longevity of a system through pooled winning instead of pooled costs is easyier.
i dont know. just thinking outloud. take the idea run with it tear it a new one if u want.