The core argument against this would, I guess, be simply that someone else would sell it cheaper. Insurance is extremely easy to switch and there are multiple p

The core argument against this would, I guess, be simply that someone else would sell it cheaper. Insurance is extremely easy to switch and there are multiple people offering it. Everyone has to buy it, so there's definitely a huge market, and it's not a monopoly. > What's to keep them from selling you tsunami-insurance at Japanese or Californian rates, even though you live in Minnesota? Nothing, but if people are paying way over the odds for it, why wouldn't someone else come in and sell it cheaper? > So if private companies can't be held to a profit margin, is the answer state-issued insurance? Quite possibly, but how palatable this is depends on the distribution of the thing you're insuring. Healthcare, for example, is something that seems to work pretty well being state funded. Helicopter insurance might draw more ire. Cars are a hard one here (UK). They're not universally owned or needed, but are common. And then what type of insurance? Just third party for free? Well then there's still the same issue with all the other options. > How do we stop this? I think the answer is to simply not allow this level of personalization. I think ensuring that your data is not held by a single insurer but owned by you is important, not a lack of any data. This should come with the ability to migrate your driving data between insurers, so that anyone can quickly get a quote from any insurer. Otherwise you have a lock-in problem where competing insurers don't know enough about each others customers to be able to offer decent quotes.