Full Coverage Government

[Neally]

I hate it when statistics are used to make irrelevant judgements, not directly related to the issue at hand.

Yet a statistical correlation exists between age and credit scores and future claims. So why do you hate some valid statistical correleations?

Your avoidance of answers to the previous questions regarding your support of discriminatory models and US government insurance is noted.

 

[King of the Americas]

The risk of making a claim is an irrelevant judgment not directly related to the issue at hand?

Why, you're just full of gems today!

A perceived or potential risk of making a claim doesn't mean you actually will...

You might well be a female under the age of 21, but you might be a young Danica Patrick, one of the best young drivers of the day.

Just because you a part of a high risk 'group', doesn't mean you are an actual bad driver.

And this is THE definition of discrimination I am most familiar with. You aren't being judged by your actual merits, but the merits of the group which has been formed around you.

 

[Neally]

A perceived or potential risk of making a claim doesn't mean you actually will...

Just because you a part of a high risk 'group', doesn't mean you are an actual bad driver.

A previous speeding ticket doesn't mean you'll actually file a claim next year. A previous fender bender doesn't mean you'll actually file a claim next year. Why do you hate some valid statistical correlations and not others?

 

[Ziggurat]

A perceived or potential risk of making a claim doesn't mean you actually will...

That applies to the criteria that you favor for discrimination as well. So... fail.

Just because you a part of a high risk 'group', doesn't mean you are an actual bad driver.

And just because you're a bad driver doesn't mean that you'll actually make a claim. Nor does being a good driver mean you won't make a claim. So what?

 

[King of the Americas]

A previous speeding ticket doesn't mean you'll actually file a claim next year. A previous fender bender doesn't mean you'll actually file a claim next year. Why do you hate some valid statistical correlations and not others?

My public system would operate as a punitive one, rather than a predictive one.

If you made at 'at fault' claim, then YOU would have to pay back higher premiums.

Individuals would be rewarded or punished, based on their driving score- something based on your driving test score, defensive driving courses, driving citations, and any accidents you may have caused.

I don't mind actual valid statistics and correlations...

 

[Ziggurat]

My public system would operate as a punitive one, rather than a predictive one.

If you made at 'at fault' claim, then YOU would have to pay back higher premiums.

First off, you've already stated that you would discriminate on the basis of factors other than past claims. And second, why not just go all the way and deny ALL 'at fault' claims? Then you could really lower the price.

I don't mind actual valid statistics and correlations...

Sure you do. The very idea of using valid statistics and correlations is anathema to you, since you JUST SAID that you don't want insurance to be predictive. Except you're not even honest about that.

 

[King of the Americas]

Zig,

You are hopeless...

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig,

You are hopeless...

I take it then that you have no further defense of the internal contradictions in your stated position?

 

[Neally]

My public system would operate as a punitive one, rather than a predictive one.

Except that newly insured people have NO driving record, so I guess their insurance is free until/unless they file a claim and as Ziggurat pointed out, you've already said you would punish people even without them filing a claim, if they had a speeding ticket for example. And your model IS trying to be predictive of future claims, although inefficiently. Your model MUST be predictive for it not to lose money. Again the only way it can work in a non-predictive/non-discriminatory way is if you charge premiums equal to the actual claims which would be the equivalent of having no insurance.

The way all insurance works is by evaluating risk and setting premiums accordingly. Besides the obvious contradictions regarding "discrimination" in your model, it doesn't optimally evaluate risk, and therefore will either lose money or be the most expensive option out there. Sorry to disappoint your idealistic dream of government provided insurance, but the free market with fierce competition does a much better job of risk evaluation than your goofy idea.

I don't mind actual valid statistics and correlations...

Which is what is used when underwriting all policies and includes age and credit scores.

 

[King of the Americas]

Except that newly insured people have NO driving record...

...

You'd still have their driving test on which to set a premium.

My model wouldn't be designed to produce profits, just enough overhead to pay for administration costs and replace last year's claim losses.

 

[Ziggurat]

You'd still have their driving test on which to set a premium.

So you're still advocating charging people a premium based on future risk profile, not actual past claims. You're contradicting yourself. The sad thing is that I bet you're actually honest about not recognizing this as a contradiction.

My model wouldn't be designed to produce profits, just enough overhead to pay for administration costs and replace last year's claim losses.

Because as we all know, profits = evil.

Might as well socialize the entire economy. Or at least the entire service sector.

 

[King of the Americas]

So you're still advocating charging people a premium based on future risk profile, not actual past claims. You're contradicting yourself. The sad thing is that I bet you're actually honest about not recognizing this as a contradiction.



Because as we all know, profits = evil.

Might as well socialize the entire economy. Or at least the entire service sector.

I am advocating holding people responsible for THEIR driving record, and using their driving record to determine their driving insurance premium. I don't see this as a contradictory stance as your driving record is DIRECTLY related to your ability to operate a motor vehicle.

And I don't think profits are evil. I think we are morons for paying high priced executives, bloated advertising campaigns, AND a profit margin for something our government could do at a fraction of the price.

You really should drop the whole, "If you are right, then we have to allow the government to take over everything." Because the insurance sector DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING, not even 'service'. We get 'denials' for our payments and premiums, not service at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am advocating holding people responsible for THEIR driving record

You keep moving the goalpost. Previously you claimed that you only wanted to charge people based on their actual claims. But your claims record is different than your driving record. Why should your driving record matter if all you care about is past claims?

Oh, that's right: because past driving record correlates with future risk. Just like age does, for example. So you DO want to include future risk, but only in some instances, and you don't want to call it that even though that's exactly what it is.

You really should drop the whole, "If you are right, then we have to allow the government to take over everything." Because the insurance sector DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING, not even 'service'.

That's perhaps the dumbest statement you've made yet. Car insurance does indeed provide a service. I've even described in this thread the service that car insurance has provided to me in the past.

We get 'denials' for our payments and premiums, not service at all.

I've never gotten a denial. I've gotten claims paid for me, even by other people's insurance. Nor have you given any evidence that this is actually a real problem for other people.

The only denial here is your denial of reality.

 

[King of the Americas]

You keep moving the goalpost. Previously you claimed that you only wanted to charge people based on their actual claims. But your claims record is different than your driving record. Why should your driving record matter if all you care about is past claims?

...

I have repeatedly said that ONLY your driving record should be used to assign premiums.

To suggest otherwise would be inaccurate.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have repeatedly said that ONLY your driving record should be used to assign premiums.

To suggest otherwise would be inaccurate.

No, it would not be inaccurate. It would be the truth.

I understand that CURRENT insurance models are designed to predict future claimers. MINE would not be, because there is no need to financially punish 'potential' claimers. INSTEAD, my system would punish ACTUAL claimers, and assign premiums ONLY to cover last year's losses.

Holding people accountable for the 'at fault' claims they make is in my opinion, the best way to insure there are direct consequences for actions, and thus the best way to assign penalty premium rates, as a +1 or +2 rating.

You have explicitly disavowed predicting future risk, and stated that you want to base premiums on past at-fault claims. That contradicts your statement that driving records should also be used, because driving records don't represent past claims, and the only relevance they have to insurance is as an indicator of future risk (not actual outcome), and you said you don't want insurance to consider future risk.

Really, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

 

[Neally]

Really, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

+1

 

[King of the Americas]

Why would you choose to ignore my holding that a traffic citation is something I would in fact hold against you, in regards to setting a public insurance premium?

My argument isn't ONE retort.

There are "5" pages to this thread.

I think that ignoring "5" pages of my repeatedly saying that I would use someone's entire driving record to assign a premium, is intellectually dishonest, and YOU 'should' be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would you choose to ignore my holding that a traffic citation is something I would in fact hold against you, in regards to setting a public insurance premium?

My argument isn't ONE retort.

I obviously haven't ignored your "holding". And indeed, the fact that your argument isn't one "retort" is also obvious. The problem is that your different arguments contradict each other.

I think that ignoring "5" pages of my repeatedly saying that I would use someone's entire driving record to assign a premium, is intellectually dishonest

So you have been consistent: you've consistently contradicted yourself.

and YOU 'should' be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself.

Why is 'should' in quotes? Are you suggesting some alternative meaning for the word? Well, that actually makes sense, because the statement doesn't apply with the standard definition.

 

[King of the Americas]

I think I am done arguing this point... Yep. I am certain of it.

There exists within this thread evidence linked, that will show you three things:

-That insurance companies deny more claims and charge higher premiums to pay for higher salaries, advertising, and to turn a profit than a non-profit organization would.

-That insurance companies are right now, allowed to legally discriminate, and they seek to do so even more.

-That given the insurance sector does not produce anything, government has a role to fill, in encouraging everyone to pool their risk into the largest group possible, to distribute the risk most broadly.

A single payer, non-profit government insurance program IS the most cost efficient use of insurance premiums.

The links provided within this thread bare witness to these statements.

 

[Ziggurat]

There exists within this thread evidence linked, that will show you three things:

-That insurance companies deny more claims and charge higher premiums to pay for higher salaries, advertising, and to turn a profit than a non-profit organization would.

No evidence at all has been presented regarding automobile insurance denials of claims.

-That insurance companies are right now, allowed to legally discriminate, and they seek to do so even more.

You want them to discriminate too, you just want them to do so on a more constrained basis. The irony of your position, of course, is both that the existing government insurance you have pointed to discriminates on more than your limited basis, AND that one could impose these constraints on discrimination without socializing the industry.

-That given the insurance sector does not produce anything

According to that definition, NO service industry produces anything. Therefore...

government has a role to fill

... in every service industry, apparently.