|
|
| Author |
Message |
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Zuldane
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4057
Location: At sea.
|
 Posted: 09/05/04 - 23:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
if it only monitors braking and acceleration then I wouldn't mind that much, I just don't want them watching me sing japanese songs
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 00:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| NoPrivacyForYou wrote: | | In return, he got a $25 stipend and the promise of a 15 percent rate cut when the program launches. |
My insurance rates are f*****g massive and if it were a substantial amount I might be interested, but 15%? That's $40/month savings for me. I don't think the equivalent of having an insurance agent making exasperated sighs in the backseat every time you get on the gas is worth an extra $480 a year.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tiluvas
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2355
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 00:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | NoPrivacyForYou wrote: | | In return, he got a $25 stipend and the promise of a 15 percent rate cut when the program launches. |
My insurance rates are f*****g massive and if it were a substantial amount I might be interested, but 15%? That's $40/month savings for me. I don't think the equivalent of having an insurance agent making exasperated sighs in the backseat every time you get on the gas is worth an extra $480 a year. |
I do. I would gladly take this, as I'm a pretty safe driver. $40 a month is like three b******s from tranny hookers on Sunset. Or one video game a month.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kilzalot
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2080
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 02:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Depends on how much it would save me... but I've kinda got a lead foot... so erm... yea =x
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 02:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
no thanks
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Owyyn
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2900
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 17:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it can raise your rates too if it doesn't like how you're driving.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 20:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
Against it, because if it pays off for cars, it may also be used in other areas.
ie for medical insurance
Source
| Quote: |
The Risks of Regulated Biotech
or
How to Hurt People by Helping Them
It is now becoming possible to identify genetic tendencies toward diseases and test for them. This leads to some interesting problems.
Some people have bad hearts, some do not. As long as nobody knows which is which, it is possible to insure against the risk of a heart attack. Suppose a cheap and reliable genetic test is discovered by which we can tell who is in which group. Consider some possible legal rules:
1. The test is banned; nobody is allowed to use it.
2. Individuals are permitted to get tested. Insurance companies are permitted to make testing a condition of insurance and take account of the result in setting rates.
3. Individuals are permitted to get tested; the results are confidential. Insurance companies are forbidden to make testing a condition of insurance and take account of the result.
4. Individuals are permitted to get tested, but the fact of the test (not the outcome) is recorded. Insurance companies are not permitted to require testing as a condition of insurance but are permitted to know whether or not a potential customer has been tested and to take account of that fact in setting the rate they charge him.
What are the consequences of each rule? Is it possible that, under some or all rules, the invention of the test makes us worse off?
To see why the answer is "yes," compare rules 1 and 2. Under rule 1, which corresponds to the situation before the test is invented, neither the insurance company nor the customer knows the condition of the customer's heart, so the risk of having a bad heart is insurable. Under rule 2 if you try to buy insurance and refuse to be tested, the company will take that as evidence that you know you have a bad heart and set the price accordingly. You can still get tested, show the results to the insurance company, and insure against whatever uncertainty is left after knowing the condition of your heart, but the risk of having a bad heart is now uninsurable.
The result of rule 3 is worse still; we are back in the market for lemons. Anyone who tries to buy insurance against a heart attack signals by doing so that he has a bad heart; the insurance company no longer has the option of testing applicants and pricing insurance accordingly. People with good hearts cannot get insurance unless they are willing to pay far more than the actuarial value of their risk, which few are. Only people with bad hearts are insurable&endash;against the residual uncertainty of just when their hearts will fail.
Rule 4, if it is an option, provides the best outcome. People who want to insure against the risk of a bad heart can buy insurance before being tested; since they can prove to the insurer that they have not been tested, the price will correspond to what it costs to provide insurance to a random customer. After they have bought insurance they can then decide whether the advantage of better information about what health precautions they should take and how long they can expect to live outweighs the risk of learning something they may not want to know.
Unfortunately rule 4 may not be an option in a world of many countries and high mobility. Even if the United States insists that all tests be recorded and successfully suppresses any black market in secret tests, American citizens can still get their genes tested somewhere with less restrictive rules. The same problems apply to rule 1. So it is possible that the invention of the test, by moving us from the world of rule 1 to the world of rule 2 or 3, may make the risk of being born with a bad heart uninsurable&endash;just as the risk of being born poor is now. If that effect is large enough to outweigh the benefits that individuals get from knowing more about their own health risks, the invention of the test will have made us, on net, worse off.
I was introduced to this problem by a commencement speech proposing rule 3 as a way of protecting people from misuse of genetic information by their insurance companies. I concluded that the speaker had never heard of adverse selection. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 23:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
i am for it if you drive like a grandma , for me now ...... they would drop me the first day .
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 23:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Notice it's none other than those dastardly communists in the ACLU saying this is an infringement upon individual rights.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 09/06/04 - 23:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Soriak wrote: | Against it, because if it pays off for cars, it may also be used in other areas.
ie for medical insurance
Source
| Quote: |
The Risks of Regulated Biotech
or
How to Hurt People by Helping Them
It is now becoming possible to identify genetic tendencies toward diseases and test for them. This leads to some interesting problems.
Some people have bad hearts, some do not. As long as nobody knows which is which, it is possible to insure against the risk of a heart attack. Suppose a cheap and reliable genetic test is discovered by which we can tell who is in which group. Consider some possible legal rules:
1. The test is banned; nobody is allowed to use it.
2. Individuals are permitted to get tested. Insurance companies are permitted to make testing a condition of insurance and take account of the result in setting rates.
3. Individuals are permitted to get tested; the results are confidential. Insurance companies are forbidden to make testing a condition of insurance and take account of the result.
4. Individuals are permitted to get tested, but the fact of the test (not the outcome) is recorded. Insurance companies are not permitted to require testing as a condition of insurance but are permitted to know whether or not a potential customer has been tested and to take account of that fact in setting the rate they charge him.
What are the consequences of each rule? Is it possible that, under some or all rules, the invention of the test makes us worse off?
To see why the answer is "yes," compare rules 1 and 2. Under rule 1, which corresponds to the situation before the test is invented, neither the insurance company nor the customer knows the condition of the customer's heart, so the risk of having a bad heart is insurable. Under rule 2 if you try to buy insurance and refuse to be tested, the company will take that as evidence that you know you have a bad heart and set the price accordingly. You can still get tested, show the results to the insurance company, and insure against whatever uncertainty is left after knowing the condition of your heart, but the risk of having a bad heart is now uninsurable.
The result of rule 3 is worse still; we are back in the market for lemons. Anyone who tries to buy insurance against a heart attack signals by doing so that he has a bad heart; the insurance company no longer has the option of testing applicants and pricing insurance accordingly. People with good hearts cannot get insurance unless they are willing to pay far more than the actuarial value of their risk, which few are. Only people with bad hearts are insurable&endash;against the residual uncertainty of just when their hearts will fail.
Rule 4, if it is an option, provides the best outcome. People who want to insure against the risk of a bad heart can buy insurance before being tested; since they can prove to the insurer that they have not been tested, the price will correspond to what it costs to provide insurance to a random customer. After they have bought insurance they can then decide whether the advantage of better information about what health precautions they should take and how long they can expect to live outweighs the risk of learning something they may not want to know.
Unfortunately rule 4 may not be an option in a world of many countries and high mobility. Even if the United States insists that all tests be recorded and successfully suppresses any black market in secret tests, American citizens can still get their genes tested somewhere with less restrictive rules. The same problems apply to rule 1. So it is possible that the invention of the test, by moving us from the world of rule 1 to the world of rule 2 or 3, may make the risk of being born with a bad heart uninsurable&endash;just as the risk of being born poor is now. If that effect is large enough to outweigh the benefits that individuals get from knowing more about their own health risks, the invention of the test will have made us, on net, worse off.
I was introduced to this problem by a commencement speech proposing rule 3 as a way of protecting people from misuse of genetic information by their insurance companies. I concluded that the speaker had never heard of adverse selection. |
|
This article is interesting but in analyzing Option 3 they assume that only people with bad hearts will be buying health insurance, which I hardly think will be the case. Having insurance against a particular kind of malady is just retarded sounding in the first place.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 00:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | This article is interesting but in analyzing Option 3 they assume that only people with bad hearts will be buying health insurance, which I hardly think will be the case. Having insurance against a particular kind of malady is just retarded sounding in the first place. |
It doesn't say only people with bad hearts would be buying that certain insurance. But if you have the option of knowing if you'll have any heart diseases, then, after having the results, go and get insured - that makes it probably you actually are at risk.
Therefore insurance companies would charge everyone as a high-risk patient, and low-risk patients who wanted to get insured anyway would have to pay a much higher fee than what would be appropriate.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Guest
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 00:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Yabden
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 2485
Location: Ohio
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 02:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Company spokesman William Perry says use of the auto data recorder will not be mandatory for Progressive customers. |
lol the fridge!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 09:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
its not gonna save anyone anything, it will just be an excuse to hike up rates for people who refuse to use it, mrk my words, it will go in as mandatory and in a few years it will be required.. is it an infringement on your rights, prolly not.. but that doesnt mean its not something people should fight because you are gonna end up with 2 options, rape you in the ass rates or big brother watching you from the backseat... and watch it will evolve to monitor more things too, like radio volume, and when it does that it will somehow have the unavoidable side effect of knowing what station your listening too but they didnt mean for it to do that so they promise not to use that data other than to sell it to anyone who will pay for it.
It will also manage to know how low you let your tank get before refueling, how many miles per day you drive, how many you spend on the highway, how many you spend in stop and go traffic, how many time you put your car in reverse, how many times you put your mountain dew back in the cup holder, how many hands you have on the wheel and their position, how many times you shift in your seat, and what color your eyes are.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 11:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| fagarom wrote: | |
hahaha , god , how meny of those do you have ?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scoresia
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 1500
Location: Florida
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 12:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
f**k this, I would rather pay higher rates than have to tell the ins company exactly how much I drive, where, and how fast.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Vengar_OO
Sir Postalot
Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 1029
Location: Mayport, FL
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 15:52 Post subject: -==-
|
|
|
|
Insurance companies suck. Any idea they come up with like this will be a bad idea later on down the road.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Guest
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 16:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | fagarom wrote: | |
hahaha , god , how meny of those do you have ? |
so many lol.
i have a wealth of brash's knowledge under my belt.
i'm gonna start using em more often.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 16:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I am very strongly against this, it's simply a tactic to force you into obeying the speedlimit by having the "officer" in the car with you. The problem here is if a large group of people agree to this, they will jack the rates up sky high for those of us who disagree. They could win by strong-arm monopoly if they can get this to be acceptable for large numbers of people, because then you simply won't be able to afford insurance that doesnt require this.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nictathan
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 5531
Location: here... where I am... not with you
|
|
Posted: 09/07/04 - 16:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
Let's start Realpoor Insurance.
We can all have free insurance lolzers!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 01:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nictypoo wrote: | Let's start Realpoor Insurance.
We can all have free insurance lolzers! |
Dispatcher: "Thank you for calling Realpoor Insurance, my name is Fagarom. How can I help you?"
Customer: "Yeah, I was just in an accident."
Dispatcher: "lolz."
Customer: "Excuse me?"
Dispatcher: "Oh nothing. What happened?"
Customer: "Well, this old woman..."
Dispatcher: "c**t."
Customer: "Err...yeah. This old...c**t...rear ended me..."
Dispatcher: "Anal ****."
Customer: "What the f...?"
Dispatcher: "The old c**t gave you a meat injection in the poopershoot."
Customer: "Wait a minute..."
Dispatcher: "Was there any porn involved?"
Customer: "That's rediculous! Why would por..."
Dispatcher: "Have you seen a man with an a*****e the diameter of a pint glass lately?"
Customer: "Look, man, my car is totally f****d up..."
Dispatcher: "Pics plz."
Customer: "Ok, I did take pictures but I'll need to get them developed and all that. I just wanted to start a claim or whatever and get my insurance involved so I don't have to pay for this."
Dispatcher: "..."
Customer: "..."
Dispatcher: "..."
Customer: "Uhm..."
Dispatcher: "Would you trade privacy for a lower insurance rate?"
Customer: "What the f**k is that supposed to mean?"
Dispatcher: "It's a pole."
Customer: "One more hurricane in florida would finish the trilogy!"
Dispatcher: "FAGAROM IS BACK!"
Customer: "Need help posting pic."
Dispatcher: "Ok, good. We'll have Confused replace your car with a Mercedes, tell everyone that Foshizzo wrecked it while racing the old c**t and Kbarr will kill her so you can collect life insurance. By the way, check out the wisdom teeth topic for good commentary on Paden's balls."
Customer: "fux yeah, thx lozzle!" *click*
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Guest
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 02:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
it's a pole.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
