4 ms·

I agree than tracking detailed purchase data can lead to serious discrimination and inequity especially in a dictatorship. The use case in your example, however

I agree than tracking detailed purchase data can lead to serious discrimination and inequity especially in a dictatorship. The use case in your example, however, seems fair: * The person has a choice whether to consume fast food regularly. It’s their freedom, yes, but they should also accept the costs that come with their lifestyle choices. Similarly, if someone chooses to regularly drive at a daredevil speed, they should pay a higher premium. * This is different than discrimination based on involuntary characteristics. If someone is born with genetic predisposition to get cancer, or happens to grow up in a city with high carcinogen level, it’s arguably a lot less fair to charge them extras.

9991 3y ago
Why should I subsidize parents who choose to raise kids in carcinogenic cities?
- nopinsight 3y ago
  The data might not be available at the time. And the person did not have a choice when they were a child. Is the above question rhetorical or do you lean more libertarian?
  - ztrww 3y ago
    I don’t see their point much different from what you described in your comment.
- arapacana 3y ago
  The hubris of this is phenomenal. People have ancestral homes in places that have become carcinogenic because of industrial activity they didn't ask for, the best job opportunities are often in places that you must go to in order for your family to have the best opportunities possible. The amount of privilege in asking this question is just shocking. As if people can so easily choose where they live. Try telling miners and nomadic construction workers that.
bheadmaster 3y ago
The whole point of health insurance is to ammortize the unpredictable costs of healthcare amongst a large number of people. If health insurance companies start discriminating ahead of time based on "predictions of disease" then the whole point of insurance falls apart. Might as well abolish it and let everyone pay for their medical bills on their own. Which would be actually more fair than paying a "unhealthy food premium" - since you're only paying for actually getting sick, not for the prediction of whatever model the insurance company is using to predict your sickness. I fear and loathe the future in which statistical models (of sickness, crime, etc.) determine the course of my life. I'd much rather be held responsible for my own actions and accept whatever randomness of the universe throws at me, than be a puppet of some huge statistical model created to maximize megacorporations' profits.
- nopinsight 3y ago
  Accidents and health problems are not completely predictable for an individual, but the rates are for different groups of people. As long as it’s within their power to choose, they should accept the consequences that come with their choices. If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool? It’s an established practice for insurance companies to use statistics to charge a higher premium for some groups, eg young male drivers, even if many in such a group have a safe lifestyle. If they use a finer grained model, then it’s more fair to people who make a safer life choice. The profits are largely orthogonal to whether they use a coarse or fine grained statistical model, but more about the level of competition in a given market. Over time, companies using a fairer model might win over the competition, all else being equal.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool? Yes, because choosing otherwise opens the door to discrimination based on many factors, many of which can be completely out of our control. What if you're working a job with a non-insignificant risk of danger - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to work in that profession and to put the last 20 years of your life specializing in it. You should've just chosen differently... What if you're living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to inherit the house and live there and put the last 20 years of your life building a home and a social network there. You should've just chosen differently... What if you're shortsighted which makes you more of a danger in traffic - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be shortsighted, but you could change it with a laser surgery or whatever, and afterall, we're just following the model... What if you're black - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be black, but statistics show that black people are significantly more at risk of being victims of violent crime. And after all, we're not being racist, we're just follow the model... Et cetera. If you allow insurance companies to discriminate, eventually, everyone who isn't following the "safe path" will be discriminated against. At that point, the insurance stops being merely an amortization of unpredictable cost, and becomes a tool to control the population.
uwagar 3y ago
>The person has a choice whether to consume fast food regularly. It’s their >freedom, yes, but they should also accept the costs that come with their >lifestyle choices. Similarly, if someone chooses to regularly drive at a >daredevil speed, they should pay a higher premium. i'm scared of people that think like this. all digital transactions enables such people to mandate these ideas - the road to hell with their good intentions.

9991 3y ago

Why should I subsidize parents who choose to raise kids in carcinogenic cities?

nopinsight 3y ago
The data might not be available at the time. And the person did not have a choice when they were a child. Is the above question rhetorical or do you lean more libertarian?
- ztrww 3y ago
  I don’t see their point much different from what you described in your comment.
arapacana 3y ago
The hubris of this is phenomenal. People have ancestral homes in places that have become carcinogenic because of industrial activity they didn't ask for, the best job opportunities are often in places that you must go to in order for your family to have the best opportunities possible. The amount of privilege in asking this question is just shocking. As if people can so easily choose where they live. Try telling miners and nomadic construction workers that.

bheadmaster 3y ago

The whole point of health insurance is to ammortize the unpredictable costs of healthcare amongst a large number of people. If health insurance companies start discriminating ahead of time based on "predictions of disease" then the whole point of insurance falls apart. Might as well abolish it and let everyone pay for their medical bills on their own. Which would be actually more fair than paying a "unhealthy food premium" - since you're only paying for actually getting sick, not for the prediction of whatever model the insurance company is using to predict your sickness. I fear and loathe the future in which statistical models (of sickness, crime, etc.) determine the course of my life. I'd much rather be held responsible for my own actions and accept whatever randomness of the universe throws at me, than be a puppet of some huge statistical model created to maximize megacorporations' profits.

nopinsight 3y ago
Accidents and health problems are not completely predictable for an individual, but the rates are for different groups of people. As long as it’s within their power to choose, they should accept the consequences that come with their choices. If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool? It’s an established practice for insurance companies to use statistics to charge a higher premium for some groups, eg young male drivers, even if many in such a group have a safe lifestyle. If they use a finer grained model, then it’s more fair to people who make a safer life choice. The profits are largely orthogonal to whether they use a coarse or fine grained statistical model, but more about the level of competition in a given market. Over time, companies using a fairer model might win over the competition, all else being equal.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > If all your neighbors play extreme sports or drive drunk all the time, would you like to pay the same premium as they do in the same insurance pool? Yes, because choosing otherwise opens the door to discrimination based on many factors, many of which can be completely out of our control. What if you're working a job with a non-insignificant risk of danger - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to work in that profession and to put the last 20 years of your life specializing in it. You should've just chosen differently... What if you're living in a neighborhood with a high crime rate - should your premiums be higher? After all, you chose to inherit the house and live there and put the last 20 years of your life building a home and a social network there. You should've just chosen differently... What if you're shortsighted which makes you more of a danger in traffic - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be shortsighted, but you could change it with a laser surgery or whatever, and afterall, we're just following the model... What if you're black - should your premiums be higher? Maybe you didn't choose to be black, but statistics show that black people are significantly more at risk of being victims of violent crime. And after all, we're not being racist, we're just follow the model... Et cetera. If you allow insurance companies to discriminate, eventually, everyone who isn't following the "safe path" will be discriminated against. At that point, the insurance stops being merely an amortization of unpredictable cost, and becomes a tool to control the population.

uwagar 3y ago

>The person has a choice whether to consume fast food regularly. It’s their >freedom, yes, but they should also accept the costs that come with their >lifestyle choices. Similarly, if someone chooses to regularly drive at a >daredevil speed, they should pay a higher premium. i'm scared of people that think like this. all digital transactions enables such people to mandate these ideas - the road to hell with their good intentions.