Larks comments on Longevity Insurance - Less Wrong

20 Post author: canadaduane 20 February 2012 12:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 20 February 2012 02:17:28PM 6 points [-]

Suppose early on in my life I incurr $1,999,999 in expenses. Then, later on I have an unexpected accident that costs $2. Prima facie the system should still fund this. However, your system, by not focusing on the margins, does not satisfy this.

Also, you probably want a smoother tail. Your system would spend $2m to extend the life of a 74 year old by a year, but nothing to extend the life of a 75 year old by 20 years.

Also, I don't think that, in equilibrium, health insurance companies are actually incentivised to fund research into longevity. This would only make policies cheaper if consumers hadn't already taken into account the increases to lifespan.

Finally, I think this post would be improved if you hadn't mentioned its making public healthcare easier - Politics is the Mind-Killer.