5 ms·
Yeah, in my mind, this completely negates the argument. If I don't engage in a given statistically risky behavior today, I'm paying more for insurance because s
by bostonpete 11y ago
Yeah, in my mind, this completely negates the argument. If I don't engage in a given statistically risky behavior today, I'm paying more for insurance because some people do and the insurance company doesn't know who should be paying for that risky behavior so we all pay a little more.
To me, the more compelling angle to attack surveillance has to appeal to people's desire to keep some portion of their lives from being made public (rather than appealing to their wallet).
- terryf 11y agoBut the whole point of insurance is to collectively spread the risk, so that when things do go bad, you are not on your own. By definition, people in aggregate pay more for insurance than what the insurance pays them back (otherwise the company would go bankrupt!). Insurance is paying for peace of mind. Most people are paying more premiums than insurance is paying them back.