Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: Occam's razor

re: Centralize-decentralize
Raoul — (archived)

Insurance companies need statistics and as many clients as possible to spread the risks.
Somebody living in a regularly flooded area won't be able to cover against floods as easily as someone living on top of a hill. Same for earthquakes; they don't occure everywhere.
But if you want to give the chance to those living is risky areas (some places get more regularly robbed than others) to pay a reasonable insurance premium, then those living in less risky areas will pay a slightly higher premium than the risk would allow.

Same for social security, especially in the US: some towns have a much higher rate of retired people than others. There, the need for medical treatments is higher. Isn't it fair to apply the same social security system throughout the whole country, spreading the costs, than forcing some states to pay more because there is an uneven spread of the population? In the US, where moving is a lot easier than in Europe (because nobody needs to change their language in the US), cities can literally empty themselves from the young working citizens, even if the area is very beautiful, while elderly people stay.
In Belgium, the flemish side wants indeed to regionalize social security because it doesn't want to pay for the french speaking side. However, if the present trend continues, Flanders will have a much larger proportion of elderly people than Wallonia and if social security is regionalized , it's going to be a lot tougher to pay fo it in Flanders.

Decentralizing has its merits but so does centralizing.

Raoul

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (41 posts)