4 ms·

FWIW socialised healthcare (the better alternative) hasn't solved that particular problem. Punitive taxes on alcohol and smoking are very common because they're

FWIW socialised healthcare (the better alternative) hasn't solved that particular problem. Punitive taxes on alcohol and smoking are very common because they're trying to reduce costs. Insurance is the same thing but on an individual basis, which means healthier people should _in theory_ get better premiums in your example.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Right, but I'm talking about the novel ways companies try to optimize premiums. Car insurance is already doing it with some companies wanting you to install an application on your phone to track your driving habits in hopes of maybe lowering your premium. Disgusting shit.
- pc86 5y ago
  I don't install these apps but what exactly is wrong with them and why is it "disgusting shit?" If I drive the speed limit or slower, stop for 3-4 seconds at every stop sign, don't accelerate quickly, etc., what's wrong with me having a lower auto insurance premium than someone with an identical profile who goes 10 over the limit everywhere and rolls through every 5th stop sign? I'm not implying insurance companies are doing this out of altruism. If it resulted in a net decrease in profit, the apps wouldn't exist. But it does seem like a beneficial form of price discrimination. It seems like it's only "disgusting shit" if it makes your insurance premiums go up because you're a less safe driver.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I will admit I'm not a fan of surveillance based insurance, either. Just pointing out the alternative is individualising the cost via insurance or making all society pay for a few people.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    The problem is when it becomes required to submit to this sort of surveillance, or you don't get insurance at all. That doesn't seem like an unlikely endgame to me. Also the factors the app monitors are not necessarily correlated with risk of a crash in the way we'd expect. For example, if you drive the speed limit or slower on most highways in the US, you will be driving slower than the speed of most traffic, and it's more likely that someone will rear-end you.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Right, but I'm talking about the novel ways companies try to optimize premiums. Car insurance is already doing it with some companies wanting you to install an application on your phone to track your driving habits in hopes of maybe lowering your premium. Disgusting shit.

pc86 5y ago
I don't install these apps but what exactly is wrong with them and why is it "disgusting shit?" If I drive the speed limit or slower, stop for 3-4 seconds at every stop sign, don't accelerate quickly, etc., what's wrong with me having a lower auto insurance premium than someone with an identical profile who goes 10 over the limit everywhere and rolls through every 5th stop sign? I'm not implying insurance companies are doing this out of altruism. If it resulted in a net decrease in profit, the apps wouldn't exist. But it does seem like a beneficial form of price discrimination. It seems like it's only "disgusting shit" if it makes your insurance premiums go up because you're a less safe driver.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  I will admit I'm not a fan of surveillance based insurance, either. Just pointing out the alternative is individualising the cost via insurance or making all society pay for a few people.
- kelnos 5y ago
  The problem is when it becomes required to submit to this sort of surveillance, or you don't get insurance at all. That doesn't seem like an unlikely endgame to me. Also the factors the app monitors are not necessarily correlated with risk of a crash in the way we'd expect. For example, if you drive the speed limit or slower on most highways in the US, you will be driving slower than the speed of most traffic, and it's more likely that someone will rear-end you.