<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Safety in Numbers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/05/12/safety-in-numbers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/05/12/safety-in-numbers/</link>
	<description>For students and friends of economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:36:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.plain-sense.com/2009/05/12/safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-863</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Jenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 06:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plain-sense.com/?p=107#comment-863</guid>
		<description>I think that there are major benefits to risk pooling, but there still needs to be some mechanism in place to diversify the market to allow for targeting of services to individuals and min/maxing (as it were) with regard to expenditures/benefits.

To take your analogy further (or simply reinforce) distributed risk means distributed costs, as well.  Individuals with expensive health care needs influence those without such issues, while the two groups pay similar amounts - much in the same way all those bankruptcies are damaging the valuation of the entire risk pool in mortgages.  If there were a health crisis (such as the obesity epidemic) that shifted the costs dramatically, the system would need time to respond and reassess the risk pool/adjust rates...  That (obviously) has a big potential downside.

Just some thoughts.  I look forward to discussing this further in class.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that there are major benefits to risk pooling, but there still needs to be some mechanism in place to diversify the market to allow for targeting of services to individuals and min/maxing (as it were) with regard to expenditures/benefits.</p>
<p>To take your analogy further (or simply reinforce) distributed risk means distributed costs, as well.  Individuals with expensive health care needs influence those without such issues, while the two groups pay similar amounts &#8211; much in the same way all those bankruptcies are damaging the valuation of the entire risk pool in mortgages.  If there were a health crisis (such as the obesity epidemic) that shifted the costs dramatically, the system would need time to respond and reassess the risk pool/adjust rates&#8230;  That (obviously) has a big potential downside.</p>
<p>Just some thoughts.  I look forward to discussing this further in class.  <img src='http://www.plain-sense.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

