If you're looking for equality of outcome, why go to the trouble of training a system in the first place? A pre-selected distribution applied arbitrarily is jus

If you're looking for equality of outcome, why go to the trouble of training a system in the first place? A pre-selected distribution applied arbitrarily is just as good. Frequency of doctor visits seems a good indicator for determining how likely an insurance company will have to pay on a policy. If you want equal outcome, you end up setting a higher premium for everyone, and skip the underwriting altogether. The next part of the discussion would be subsidizing the higher premium for those that can't afford it. Just keep in mind that because there are fingers on the scale, fewer people can afford the "equalized" insurance than could afford the honestly evaluated coverage. (Prices are higher for everyone, so the pool of subscribers ends up being smaller if subscribers can opt out.) It becomes a never-ending cycle of controls and impositions leading to collapse. Have the realistic underwriting, lower prices, and subsidize those (overall) lower premiums when needed.