4 ms·

> 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, bec

> 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.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Let's take this a step further and make it so everyone has to pay for insurance, the insurance fee is based on income and not choices, and everyone is covered equally. Also, since it will all be managed by the same insurance vendor, then they can negotiate better prices in the market and make the system more efficient. Of course this will have to be highly regulated in order to make it fair. We could ensure this by having the major policies be managed by officials who are accountable to the public via a voucher system -- if the official makes bad decisions they get a 'no confidence voucher' and someone else who wants the job will get a shot at it. This system would be far from perfect, but it would probably be better than paying corporations to run it when they are incentivized to provide only enough service to meet market and legal requirements and pocket the rest -- while showing shareholders consistent profit increases, which can't be tenable.
diebeforei485 3y ago
Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job. Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance. Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado. What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender. I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a continuous blood monitor and show that they only eat metabolically healthy foods that don't spike their insulin and glucose levels. I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a fitness tracker and show that they get their 30 minutes a day of exercise.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job. > Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance. > Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado. > What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender. That's a very convenient way to contrast, but where do we draw the line? For example, should people with genetic diseases pay more? If yes, then how is that different from discriminating race or gender (which are also part of genetics and may affect the risks)? And if not - then why not? Is the reasoning consistent with all the other scenarios you've listed? Regardless, even if we did agree on a line in the sand, then insurance itself becomes just a class-based amortizer. Rich, fit, genetically lucky people in good neighbors collectively pay less, while the poor, unfit, genetically unlucky people in bad neighbors collectively pay more. Then you might as well not have insurance at all.
  - diebeforei485 3y ago
    Sure, you can't control your genetics (race, gender, birth defects) but you do choose your location, occupation, eating habits and exercise habits. There was a time when being fit required having more money, but that is increasingly not the case. You don't need to shop at Whole Foods to eat well anymore (Aldi and Trader Joes and Grocery Outlet all carry healthy foods these days).

Eisenstein 3y ago

Let's take this a step further and make it so everyone has to pay for insurance, the insurance fee is based on income and not choices, and everyone is covered equally. Also, since it will all be managed by the same insurance vendor, then they can negotiate better prices in the market and make the system more efficient. Of course this will have to be highly regulated in order to make it fair. We could ensure this by having the major policies be managed by officials who are accountable to the public via a voucher system -- if the official makes bad decisions they get a 'no confidence voucher' and someone else who wants the job will get a shot at it. This system would be far from perfect, but it would probably be better than paying corporations to run it when they are incentivized to provide only enough service to meet market and legal requirements and pocket the rest -- while showing shareholders consistent profit increases, which can't be tenable.

diebeforei485 3y ago

Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job. Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance. Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado. What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender. I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a continuous blood monitor and show that they only eat metabolically healthy foods that don't spike their insulin and glucose levels. I have no problem with people getting a discount on health insurance if they wear a fitness tracker and show that they get their 30 minutes a day of exercise.

bheadmaster 3y ago
> Yes, a professional stunt pilot should pay more than someone with a 9 to 5 desk job. > Yes, someone living in a high risk of car break-ins should pay more for auto insurance. > Yes, someone living in a low-lying area next to the beach in a place known for hurricanes should pay more for flood insurance than someone living in Colorado. > What we shouldn't do is charge people more for being of a certain race or gender. That's a very convenient way to contrast, but where do we draw the line? For example, should people with genetic diseases pay more? If yes, then how is that different from discriminating race or gender (which are also part of genetics and may affect the risks)? And if not - then why not? Is the reasoning consistent with all the other scenarios you've listed? Regardless, even if we did agree on a line in the sand, then insurance itself becomes just a class-based amortizer. Rich, fit, genetically lucky people in good neighbors collectively pay less, while the poor, unfit, genetically unlucky people in bad neighbors collectively pay more. Then you might as well not have insurance at all.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  Sure, you can't control your genetics (race, gender, birth defects) but you do choose your location, occupation, eating habits and exercise habits. There was a time when being fit required having more money, but that is increasingly not the case. You don't need to shop at Whole Foods to eat well anymore (Aldi and Trader Joes and Grocery Outlet all carry healthy foods these days).