5 ms·

Yeah but if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-v

by jajko 2y ago

Yeah but if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-variable-population insurance. End users shouldn't generally want insurance to run over-optimally, that benefits just shareholders of given insurance and not population overall. That I consider myself above-average driver changes absolutely nothing in this. And those stupid enough who think similarly and think they should therefore pay less can and will be easily hit from unexpected angles and end up same or worse (age, old injuries/mental diagnoses, family history and gazillion other params which are/should be mostly illegal to optimize against, and you have little to no control of).

devman0 2y ago
Hot take: maybe that is actually desirable? If insurance has a plethora of good actuarial information and risk modeling, and one's insurance costs are high, that's the market telling that person that they probably shouldn't be driving. If high insurance costs promote alternate means of transportation for highly risky drivers, that's a net win for everyone on the road.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  the point of insurance is to make sure if you get into a crash with somebody else and they are at fault, that they even have the means to pay you in the first place. if forced to, people make the decision to drive uninsured because it is nigh impossible to travel around this country otherwise, and then it's worse when they do get into an accident and cannot pay the other driver's costs. you can't squeeze blood from a stone. this is also partially the reasoning behind ACA requiring health insurance; hospitals were struggling because they could not collect from people with no money that were winding up in the ER.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Sounds like we need better enforcement of insurance requirements. Driving a car uninsured should have some extremely stiff penalties. Once again, maybe if the penalties are high enough and the costs expensive enough for more people, there'd actually be more of a push to re-think overly car dependent life. It will optimize society overall to have risky, uninsurable drivers not driving. It's not like healthcare. There will always be healthcare costs. We don't have to have everyone drive all the time, we choose to.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Realistically, the other person ends up in jail and then you still can’t get compensated for car repairs. It’s not super clear why that would be better than the pooling of risk that happens today that results in compensation. American society has chosen to create a built environment that is inhospitable to anything else except driving, so I don’t think this is actually a real choice. The people who are getting into crashes all the time are not the ones pushing for that built environment.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        I'm saying they should face such extreme penalties it's not worth it anymore and have it policed so those people aren't on the roads in the first place to get in a collision. Right now you're pretty much not going to have anything happen driving without insurance unless you get into an accident that you can't escape from. If it was highly likely for someone to face judgement every time they went out you'd probably have significantly fewer uninsured drivers out there.
        bobthepanda 2y ago
        Then you basically just have a roving class of jobless people stuck at home. We’re not talking about the currently uninsured. We’re talking about a “hot-take” proposal to significantly increase the amount of uninsured people today, people who today can get insurance.
        vel0city 2y ago
        Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without needing a car.
        2y ago
vel0city 2y ago
I'm not generally for hyper analyzed metrics gathering in this case (I don't like the privacy implications), but I'm generally for riskier drivers paying significantly more. Individuals should feel the costs of their driving more in the US IMO. I don't like heavily subsidizing people who drive so recklessly. Maybe then they'd realize overly building car dependent cities isn't that great in the end. Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me. I'd be happy if a huge chunk of drivers couldn't drive anymore. It would make everyone safer and save a ton of lives.
- jajko 2y ago
  Some optimization yes, but this has been already achieved decades ago by simply using driving/accident history that insurances shared among themselves probably since they went digital. All the consistently bad drivers will easily fall into this. What I talk about is anticipation/prediction, possibly wrong conclusions from data (since we all know data can be pretty bad or incorrectly analyzed), also no way to correct any incorrectly derived bad rating. There are no consumers winning in this scenario, even if it may feel intuitively as such if you are a stellar safe driver. Also there are many second-order effects, ie poor risky people pushed out of insurances, still driving since in US you can't do anything without a car in rural places, still causing accidents but no way in hell to pay back, ever. So we move the losses from private corporations to random citizens caught in some bad luck. I'd say keep the risk at those corporations, they anyhow still manage to earn billions annually, no need to make their life even easier.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  That just makes people drive without insurance. And yeah, you can fine them and take their license away. Then they drive without a license.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me This is the US. WHAT option?
  - 2y ago
dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
> if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-variable-population insurance Except spread out over time, which is still a net-benefit.
- Retric 2y ago
  Ultra efficient premiums should include the time domain by charging premiums in winter vs. summer based on risks. Keep getting better and a ‘perfect’ system would bump the premiums pre accident to cover the full costs of that accident immediately before your accident. Making insurance a pure dead loss for consumers which means insurance must be inefficient to be useful.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by jajko 2y ago

devman0 2y ago

Hot take: maybe that is actually desirable? If insurance has a plethora of good actuarial information and risk modeling, and one's insurance costs are high, that's the market telling that person that they probably shouldn't be driving. If high insurance costs promote alternate means of transportation for highly risky drivers, that's a net win for everyone on the road.

bobthepanda 2y ago
the point of insurance is to make sure if you get into a crash with somebody else and they are at fault, that they even have the means to pay you in the first place. if forced to, people make the decision to drive uninsured because it is nigh impossible to travel around this country otherwise, and then it's worse when they do get into an accident and cannot pay the other driver's costs. you can't squeeze blood from a stone. this is also partially the reasoning behind ACA requiring health insurance; hospitals were struggling because they could not collect from people with no money that were winding up in the ER.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Sounds like we need better enforcement of insurance requirements. Driving a car uninsured should have some extremely stiff penalties. Once again, maybe if the penalties are high enough and the costs expensive enough for more people, there'd actually be more of a push to re-think overly car dependent life. It will optimize society overall to have risky, uninsurable drivers not driving. It's not like healthcare. There will always be healthcare costs. We don't have to have everyone drive all the time, we choose to.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Realistically, the other person ends up in jail and then you still can’t get compensated for car repairs. It’s not super clear why that would be better than the pooling of risk that happens today that results in compensation. American society has chosen to create a built environment that is inhospitable to anything else except driving, so I don’t think this is actually a real choice. The people who are getting into crashes all the time are not the ones pushing for that built environment.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      I'm saying they should face such extreme penalties it's not worth it anymore and have it policed so those people aren't on the roads in the first place to get in a collision. Right now you're pretty much not going to have anything happen driving without insurance unless you get into an accident that you can't escape from. If it was highly likely for someone to face judgement every time they went out you'd probably have significantly fewer uninsured drivers out there.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        Then you basically just have a roving class of jobless people stuck at home. We’re not talking about the currently uninsured. We’re talking about a “hot-take” proposal to significantly increase the amount of uninsured people today, people who today can get insurance.
        vel0city 2y ago
        Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without needing a car.
        2y ago

vel0city 2y ago

I'm not generally for hyper analyzed metrics gathering in this case (I don't like the privacy implications), but I'm generally for riskier drivers paying significantly more. Individuals should feel the costs of their driving more in the US IMO. I don't like heavily subsidizing people who drive so recklessly. Maybe then they'd realize overly building car dependent cities isn't that great in the end. Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me. I'd be happy if a huge chunk of drivers couldn't drive anymore. It would make everyone safer and save a ton of lives.

jajko 2y ago
Some optimization yes, but this has been already achieved decades ago by simply using driving/accident history that insurances shared among themselves probably since they went digital. All the consistently bad drivers will easily fall into this. What I talk about is anticipation/prediction, possibly wrong conclusions from data (since we all know data can be pretty bad or incorrectly analyzed), also no way to correct any incorrectly derived bad rating. There are no consumers winning in this scenario, even if it may feel intuitively as such if you are a stellar safe driver. Also there are many second-order effects, ie poor risky people pushed out of insurances, still driving since in US you can't do anything without a car in rural places, still causing accidents but no way in hell to pay back, ever. So we move the losses from private corporations to random citizens caught in some bad luck. I'd say keep the risk at those corporations, they anyhow still manage to earn billions annually, no need to make their life even easier.
Amezarak 2y ago
That just makes people drive without insurance. And yeah, you can fine them and take their license away. Then they drive without a license.
mrguyorama 2y ago
>Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me This is the US. WHAT option?
- 2y ago

dontlikeyoueith 2y ago

> if you really optimize it to ad absurdum, everybody will pay according to damages they will cause, negating whole point of 'socialized' spread-across-variable-population insurance Except spread out over time, which is still a net-benefit.

Retric 2y ago
Ultra efficient premiums should include the time domain by charging premiums in winter vs. summer based on risks. Keep getting better and a ‘perfect’ system would bump the premiums pre accident to cover the full costs of that accident immediately before your accident. Making insurance a pure dead loss for consumers which means insurance must be inefficient to be useful.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]