4 ms·

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 au

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).
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > you do choose your location So being born in a particular place, having your history, your inheritance and most of your social connections in it, it's all just an arbitrary choice? > occupation Again, having an option to work in a certain career that brings you enough money to live and feed off your family, that's just an arbitrary choice, too? What about STDs? They may make you more prone to illnesses. You may say "well, the person has voluntarily chosen to have unprotected sex", but then what about rape victims? Should insurance companies be informed of such private details of people's lives in order to weight out whether the condition is "chosen" or not? And who the hell decides what's "chosen" and what's not? All I'm trying to say, it's not black and white. You can't just decide to count the "things you choose" and discard "things you don't choose" as most things don't fall cleanly in those two categories, location and occupation being just one of many examples of the gray area in that continuum. And once you go down the path of price discrimination based on anything, you're on a slippery slope towards thought police.

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).
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > you do choose your location So being born in a particular place, having your history, your inheritance and most of your social connections in it, it's all just an arbitrary choice? > occupation Again, having an option to work in a certain career that brings you enough money to live and feed off your family, that's just an arbitrary choice, too? What about STDs? They may make you more prone to illnesses. You may say "well, the person has voluntarily chosen to have unprotected sex", but then what about rape victims? Should insurance companies be informed of such private details of people's lives in order to weight out whether the condition is "chosen" or not? And who the hell decides what's "chosen" and what's not? All I'm trying to say, it's not black and white. You can't just decide to count the "things you choose" and discard "things you don't choose" as most things don't fall cleanly in those two categories, location and occupation being just one of many examples of the gray area in that continuum. And once you go down the path of price discrimination based on anything, you're on a slippery slope towards thought police.