The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO’s run their companies in a way that doesn’t increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi’s them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn’t need CEO’s, so there’s no one person to target as responsible. There’s a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO’s die. Obviously this isn’t the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that’s where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.
That’s a nice theory but it relies on there only being a very small number of people who would abuse a gap in regulations to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would take advantage of that sort of flaw if put in a position to do so.
Instead, why don’t you just organize the health insurance coop now instead of waiting for random murders to start happening?
The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it’s analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I’m just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.
The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO’s run their companies in a way that doesn’t increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi’s them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn’t need CEO’s, so there’s no one person to target as responsible. There’s a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO’s die. Obviously this isn’t the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that’s where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.
That’s a nice theory but it relies on there only being a very small number of people who would abuse a gap in regulations to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would take advantage of that sort of flaw if put in a position to do so.
Instead, why don’t you just organize the health insurance coop now instead of waiting for random murders to start happening?
The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it’s analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I’m just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.
Ah so you’re saying IF the majority of the population would abuse the system, then you want to kill the majority of people.
I’m not actually indicating my personal preference on the situation at all, just my perception on the dynamics at play.