4 ms·
>insurers should distinguish between controllable and non-controllable factors, and they should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of non-controllabl
by herendin 8y ago
>insurers should distinguish between controllable and non-controllable factors, and they should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of non-controllable factors. For instance, if someone chooses to ride a motorcycle instead of drive a car, then there should be a premium for that policy. However, if someone is born with a genome that predisposes them to dying much sooner from a specific disease, they should be charged no more than anyone else, because you can't control your genetics.
Risk-taking behavior, such as choosing to ride a motorcycle, can also be influenced by genetics[1]. How can insurers distinguish 'free will' from genetic disposition?
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0042-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0042-6.pdf
- Xcelerate 8y agoHaha, I was actually wondering if someone would ask that. I don't know; it gets really complicated and philosophical really quickly.
- herendin 8y agoYes, it gets really complicated. I also don't know. Maybe there's no nice answer. Regrettably, people who write company policies and federal laws aren't always so ready to admit their own ignorance.
- gbanfalvi 8y agoThe risk-taking behaviour can't be turned off, but the individual can still choose to ride a motorcycle or not. A "biological bias" might make the choice harder, but they're not suddenly deprived of free will.